Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering

  • From: Barrows, Jeff
  • Date: Wed Jun 06 14:37:34 2001


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:14 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering

<snip>

> I would be interested in hearing what folks who once worked as the
> "peering coordinator" for a large ISP, and later worked as a smaller
> ISP trying to negotiate from different sides of the table think.  I
> believe every major ISP has turned over their peering staff at least
> once, and some multiple times.
> 
> Do the views hold constant no matter where they are, or are they
> flexible depending whether they are currently working at the big
> ISP or at the startup ISP?


An attempt to answer your question without inviting or inciting a
debate or detailed discussion [mostly since I couldn't/wouldn't
participate] in this forum about the specifics of Worldcom's peering
policies or practices:

  Having been the one responsible for peering for all of Worldcom's
  IP networks, (including UUNET, ANS, Compuserve, Gridnet, and ~15
  other large ASes around the globe that they operate) and having
  been the one who authored 99% of the most-recently released UUNET
  peering policy, and having left there to build [from scratch] a
  global IP backbone which will need direct connectivity to UUNET,
  I can give you my perspective from both sides of the table.

  My views on peering, and how an entity should position itself do
  indeed hold constant.

  Peering decisions are not technical decisions-- they are business
  decisions that have an economic impact.  No matter what the original
  intentions were, the major IP networks out there today are all doing
  business to make money by selling connectivity.  How they respond
  on issues such as peering plays a significant part on their bottom
  line, and they act accordingly in almost every case.

  Somewhere close to the heart of the problem is that there must
  be a line that separates the set of networks that you inter-
  connect with for free, [or for non-traditional customer pricing,]
  and the set of networks that you do not... and you'll never get a
  useful enough sized group of people [that is equally representative
  of the mix of interests out there] to agree on where that line
  should be drawn.  In the meantime, organizations can draw that 
  line wherever they choose.

  As this is true for UUNET, Sprint, Genuity, and C&W, it is also
  true for Aleron.  We'll make decisions based on what is best for
  our customers, our network, and for our business.  The position
  that Aleron will take is different than the position that UUNET
  will take, even though my views hold constant.

  Personally, I believe that someone will identify and leverage an
  opportunity based on all of the market pressures surrounding 
  inter-provider peering, and we'll see a whole new mechanism or
  method for dealing with "non-customer" inter-network IP traffic
  exchange.  Aleron certainly intends to make great progress in
  this space.

  Cheers,

 - jsb



--
Jeff Barrows
SVP, Global Networks
Aleron Internet
http://www.aleron.com
+1 703 287 4224 Office




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.