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 peering

  • From: Stephen J. Wilcox
  • Date: Sat Jun 09 07:17:37 2001

Hi Toby,

its not going to be that simple tho is it, partially because the
technology is different and partially because of legacy.

eg do you charge for packets sent or packets received? if its sent then
hosting companies are in trouble, if its received then its the access

eg2 you cant just say 'major networks pay interconnect' if you do it you
really need to do it everywhere and then that means working out
interconnect costs for every single peer which is a lot of admin!


> What I find most interesting about all these disputes is that none of the major
> players appear to be even slightly interested in settled interconnection - like
> they have in the telephony world.
> Before you all flame me for mindless idealism :-)  YES I know the gore is in the
> detail. YES it's a million miles from simple.
> The way I see it though, is that if there's a will there must be a way and there
> is clearly a will to change today's status quo. These top tier networks are
> relatively stable, they are large enough for deliberate manipulation of metrics
> to be operationally very sensitive/ cumbersome.
> There was a paper I saw ages ago:
> that discussed some of the economics behind peering. Though it's a bit old now,
> many of it's arguments hold true (hence todays CW/PSI/MFN/UUNet conundrums). It
> also just begins to explore the possiblities (and difficulties) of billaterally
> settled peering.
> Though any system for performing this would need to be far more fair and robust
> than anything proposed in the paper, I perceive there to be a vast opportunity
> for this model of Interconnection - the gap between free peering and transit is
> too great to fit all relationships and the higher the financial stakes get, the
> more free interconnect relationships will be stressed.
> As a plus point there would be more cash flow (even without any net gain/loss),
> which seems to be flavour of the month with telco's at the moment.
> Maybe an independent third party would help here - like the clearinghouses/S&Ps
> of this world. Anyone got any cash they want to invest? (only kidding). The idea
> being that we get our own commercial regulator, rather than some .gov one.
> cheers
> Toby
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> std disclaimer about the above being my opinions only etc
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen J. Wilcox
IP Services Manager, Opal Telecom
Tel: 0161 222 2000
Fax: 0161 222 2008

Discussion Communities

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

Merit Network, Inc.