Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now

From: Brandon Ross (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 14:59:26 EST

  • Next message: Joe Abley: "Re: oh k can you see"

    On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

    > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Payne wrote:
    >>
    >>> What am I missing?
    >>
    >> That it's a pure power play.
    >
    > market position is important

    If by market position you are referring to who needs/wants/can do without
    the traffic more, yes.

    >> Peering is only distantly associated with costs or responsibilities.
    >
    > no, peering is entirely associated with costs or responsibilities.. what
    > other reason is there to peer ?

    I was probably being a bit too dramatic with that statement. What I'm
    trying to get across is that it doesn't matter who is "supposed to" pay
    for "their customers'" traffic. It doesn't matter that I have a million
    dialup users, if I can use my market position to get someone else to peer
    with me "for free" that's all that matters. The fact that those 1 million
    customers pay me is irrelevant.

    >> It has to do with what company has the intestinal fortitude to draw a line in
    >> the sand and stick with it no matter how many customers cancel their service.
    >
    > have to weigh up the gains and losses to see if that is a good or bad
    > thing tho.

    Of course.

    >> Those with a critical mass of traffic and the right amount of guts win.
    >
    > markets are always stacked in favour of the larger players in that way..
    > saying 'hey i'm a little guy, give me chance' generally goes unheard

    Quite true.

    >> Everyone else loses the peering game.
    >
    > not peering isnt necessarily losing, there are networks who would peer with me
    > if i turned up in asia or the west coast, but my cost to get there is greater
    > than sticking to transit.

    You don't have to tell me that, I work for Internap, we've made a business
    out of not peering, and doing quite well at it.

    I said "loses the peering game". I didn't say they lost the game in
    entirety. Similarly, just because a company "wins" the peering game
    (fully peered with all other default free networks) doesn't mean it wins
    the business game. Just take a look at a former employer of mine, 4006
    was default free, but that doesn't mean that we made any money.

    > to get a new peer, both sides need to feel they are gaining value

    Or one side needs to be more scared of the other side cutting them off.

    -- 
    Brandon Ross                                              AIM:  BrandonNRoss
    Director, Network Engineering                             ICQ:  2269442
    Internap                           Skype:  brandonross  Yahoo:  BrandonNRoss
    

  • Next message: Joe Abley: "Re: oh k can you see"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD