North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: US-Asia Peering
- From: David Diaz
- Date: Fri Jan 03 10:13:33 2003
Both Stephen and Jeff and correct.
And Im not sure it would be in the best interests of the colo company
to be a jack of all trades.
Where I do see a benefit are where an exch pt company wants to start
a new one in a new city. It's the classic chicken and the egg.
Where I have promoted allowing a beta group of peers to jump in for
little or no charge till say peer #6, another solution is to connect
that new exch pt to a successful one at another location. Allowing
the benefit of new peers at location B to see old peers at location
A. This would allow a critical mass of peers immediately, and would
allow customer 1 to see benefit.
Some restrictions might have to be in place.
1) Limiting the traffic levels for distance peering. 100meg or 1 Gig
would do it
2) Perhaps a time limit
Also, instead of competing with carriers at this new location B, you
would actually prove there is business there. Most companies are in
a wait and see mode before deploying, or a wait and get an order 1st
mode. By jump starting the peering with transport, you then have the
data the carrier engineers need to justify a build.
This IS one way to get more successful peering points started.
At 10:05 -0500 1/3/03, Jeff Barrows wrote:
- Transit providers who came to the exchange point for the purpose of
picking up transit sales.
- If the exchange point operator is the one carrying the traffic, they
lose for competing with their customers in the previous bullet; they
will have taken the first steps on the path from being an exchange
point operator to being a network-plus-colo provider (where they'll
compete with the network-plus-colo providers just coming out of
bankruptcy with all their debt scraped off).
i'm still amazed that nobody has brought up the fact that a couple
of the larger colo/exchange operators that claimed they wouldn't
compete with their IP customers are indeed selling IP transit--
intentionally undercutting the prices of the providers that colo'd
there to sell transit partly because the colo/exchange operator
kept telling the world that they would never compete with their
customers in the IP transit space.
clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly-
connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their
customers don't complain too loudly.
not that it's a bad long-term plan-- but I do agree with Stephen
in that it'll be tough for them to survive against the debt-free
big boys if they emerge as clear network-plus-colo competitors
and lose the few remaining bits of their 'neutral' facade.
Jeff Barrows, President
+1 703 287 4221 Voice
+1 703 288 4003 Facsimile
An Advanced Internet Engineering
& Professional Services Organization
www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons