Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?]

["Edward B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>]

PWG> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:00:35 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W Gilmore

PWG> Any particular reason you would worry about public peering
PWG> points these days?

ANES, perhaps?  Those who finally found old NANOG-L and i-a
archives have decided public peering is bad.

Hmmmm.... let's see.... cheap, uncongested public peering -vs-
expensive private peering.  Assuming fixed amount of money to
spend, which buys more?

There.  Now we just need to wait a few more years for the "public
peering is good" mentality to spread.  Hopefully that will still
be the case at that time. :-)


PWG> There might be a concern that, for instance, a provider
PWG> would show up  to a NAP, connect at GigE, then peer with 2
PWG> gigabits of traffic.  But I fail to see why that is the
PWG> public fabric's fault, or why things would be any different
PWG> on private peering.  The provider knows when their

*nods*  Private would be worse.  Even collocation + overpriced
$500/mo fiber x-c compares favorably with metro OC3.

You've gotta admit, though:  It's funny watching someone proclaim
"we avoid public peering!" when their $149/mo dedicated server
lives in a PAIX suite, unbeknowst to them. :-)

I guess uncongested public peering technically _is_ avoiding
"congested public peering"...


Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
_________________________________________________________________
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidc () brics com -*- jfconmaapaq () intc net -*- sam () everquick net
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.