North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
- From: Owen DeLong
- Date: Mon Aug 24 16:10:33 1998
> This ignores the fact that both companies have paying customers. If I am a
> BBN access customer and I cannot get to any sites, then what good is BBN to
> me? As an access provider, I built a access infrastructure and I get payed
> by my customer for providing it to them (include in this cost is the price
> to connect to content providers). If I am a Exodus customer and I pay for
> hosting, Exodus is no good to me if it doesn't have any viewers. Exodus
> built a hosting infrastructure, its customers pay for the right to use that
> infrastructure(included in this cost is the price to connect to viewers). So
> both companies need each other. Both companies get payed for providing a
> service. Where is the problem? Why should BBN get a cut of what Exodus's
> cutomers pay? BBN is trying to get payed to provide something it needs to
> from Exodus. If BBN needs it, why would Exodus pay for it? Isn't BBN trying
> to get payed twice?
If you are a BBN access customer, then you BUY TRANSIT FROM BBN. That's not
ignored below, that puts you in the category of people that should make noise.
Personally, I agree with your position.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Dillon [SMTP:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 9:13 AM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: BBN/GTEI
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Brian Wallingford wrote:
> > > If you don't peer with or buy
> > > transit from GTEI, sit back, shut up, and watch and learn (seriously -
> > > WATCH and LEARN).
> > This is seriously good advice. A lot of people have compared this to the
> > UUNet peering flap but the two incidents couldn't be more different. In
> > UUNet's case you had John Sidgemore, an economist, attempting to throw his
> > weight around and push towards a paid peering scenario with a cartel at
> > the core, all of this based solely on an economics viewpoint.
> > But with BBN, there is a network engineering problem at the core of the
> > issue, that of assymmetric traffic patterns. And BBN realizes that this
> > sort of assymmetry will become more and more common in the future and that
> > the industry needs to find some sort of hybrid peering/settlement
> > mechanism that will work for both parties in an asymmetric arrangement.
> > They are looking at things like what kind of methodology can be used to
> > measure the traffic, what constitutes free balanced peering, how to charge
> > for regional transit on traffic that exceeds the limits of balanced
> > peering, and similar difficult issues.
> > I believe that the reason we are not hearing many details is that there
> > are NDAs in place about the specifics of the Exodus, AboveNet and CRL
> > peering contracts. But sooner or later those companies will come to some
> > sort of agreement and BBN will explain the rationale behind their
> > thinking. We may not totally agree with that rationale, but I think we can
> > all see that establishing peering between two specialty providers has to
> > be handled a bit differently than between two full-service providers.
> > And if BBN's ideas can be refined and accepted by the industry, then we
> > will be in a better position because there will be an established
> > methodology and pricing structure for an ISP to transition from full
> > transit to full peering. I know from my experience with Priori that a lot
> > of peering negotiations happen like an old-boys club cartel and if you
> > ain't a member of the club, you can't get in. We need to change this so
> > that there is an open process by which anyone can transition to being a
> > peer based on an open and accepted methodology and pricing structure.
> > --
> > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
> > Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: email@example.com
> > Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com