Re: US-Asia Peering

[David Diaz]

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.
>
>  - jsb
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Barrows, President
> Firefly Networks
> http://FireflyNetworks.net
> +1 703 287 4221 Voice
> +1 703 288 4003 Facsimile
>
> An Advanced Internet Engineering
> & Professional Services Organization
--

David Diaz
dave@smoton.net [Email]
pagedave@smoton.net [Pager]
www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons