Re: Peering is a lot of work.

["Justin W. Newton" <justin () erols com>]

At 10:25 AM 10/29/96 -0800, Kent W. England wrote:
> But that 
> still begs the question of adequate defenses against default-pointing and 
> other bad effects and the business plan which still calls for all of this
> to go away.


One can point default at someone whether or not they are peering with the
person.  I am somewhat confused by the thought that people believe that
they need to be peering with someone to have that person point default at
them.  I could (I don't, but I could), point default at /anyone/ on the
same switch fabric as me, whether they are peering with me or not.  Why do
people continue to tie these 2 issues together?

> I now take my large ISP hat off and return to the other side of the table.
> I find that many of these same problems affect me if I am a small or new
> ISP joining up to a public exchange like the NAPs or MAEs. Now I get 10
> peering requests per week and I run down the list of issues and before I
> know it, I'm figuratively back on the other side of the table wondering 
> how clueless the other party is.
>
> The public exchanges are useful for a variety of things and they are and
> will remain important, but the pressure for private peering points is
> considerable as I outlined. Take your high bandwidth traffic to/from your
> true peers off to private interconnects and avoid the hassle of the public
> bazaar for that part of the bandwidth. The traffic level justifies high
> bandwidth pipes for private peerings.
>
> My suggestion to newcomers and small ISPs is to help advance your cause by 
> latching onto the route servers and RA contractors as a way to help
> yourselves 
> and your backbone peers. You need a process which can demonstrate that you
> are 
> addressing the issues I outlined above. If that process were to be
accepted by
> all, then perhaps it would be easier to convince the backbones not to slow
> the 
> peering process, but fix it and maintain it, while continuing private 
> interconnects as warranted.
>
> Flame away, but try to stay on point. (Please don't respond and say that the
> true figure is 50 peerings per week, even though it may be more accurate.)
>
> --Kent
> Speaking as a PacBell NAP consultant.

Justin Newton
Network Architect
Erol's Internet Services
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -