http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/8E589BD9394A5141CC256DEB00084747?Op... 'Thompson also uses a different terminology to describe peering. "It's a much abused term. Peering really only happens between companies of a similar size. What we're talking about is interconnection." ' Is this the generally accepted definition of peering? -- Juha
Juha Saarinen wrote:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/8E589BD9394A5141CC256DEB00084747?Op...
A mate spotted this one: 'Thompson points to overseas markets where interconnection and peering are well-established practices. "If you look at the US, the likes of WorldCom or UUNet peer with each other, but they charge smaller players for interconnection."' Yes, I can well imagine that WCOM and UUNET would "peer with each other". ;-) -- Juha
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 21:46, Juha Saarinen wrote:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/8E589BD9394A5141CC256DEB00084747?Op...
'Thompson also uses a different terminology to describe peering.
"It's a much abused term. Peering really only happens between companies of a similar size. What we're talking about is interconnection." '
But how do you measure "similar size"? Is it to do with financial size or traffic volumes? You can have a small company who has content that customers of a large ISP want e.g. webcams pointing at LOTR premiere venues. Under the model of companies of the same size that simply wouldn't happen. I've always tried to avoid the term "interconnection" for two reasons: 1) On the Internet we're all interconnected - the question is how well? 2) Interconnection is telco speak for charging
I did ask Chris just what constituted "a peer" and his answer is it's based on traffic volumes to withing "a few percent" overseas. He gave me the example of a company in Wellington wanting to shift a lot of traffic to Auckland. They peer with Telecom at WIX and Telecom pays for the transport to Auckland. He would rather they peer in Auckland and pay someone to transport the data that far. Can anyone knock holes in this for me? Does it stand up? Are companies in NZ engaged in such practices and does it really impact on a carrier's bottom line? (sorry if this is verging on the OT).
Well, there is one issue with this Telecom statement. Global Gateway ( Telecoms wholesale arm ) does NOT peer in Wellington at all. Xtra on the other hand does peer at ape and wix. Infact GG sells domestic transit bandwidth to ISP's, but has never had any redundant connectivity to it's peers whatsoever. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Brislen [mailto:Paul_Brislen(a)idg.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 28 November 2003 10:26 a.m. To: Andy Linton traffic volumes to withing "a few percent" overseas. He gave me the example of a company in Wellington wanting to shift a lot of traffic to Auckland. They peer with Telecom at WIX and Telecom pays for the transport to Auckland. He would rather they peer in Auckland and pay someone to transport the data that far.
On 27 Nov 2003, at 16:47, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Paul Brislen wrote:
He gave me the example of a company in Wellington wanting to shift a lot of traffic to Auckland.
Could that company be Citylink and the traffic the LOTR premiere Web/multicast?
Since the overwhelming majority of the bandwidth involved in citylink LOTR webcasts is between clients and servers, and not between citylink hosts, that seems doubtful. Joe
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 23:47, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Paul Brislen wrote:
He gave me the example of a company in Wellington wanting to shift a lot of traffic to Auckland.
Could that company be Citylink and the traffic the LOTR premiere Web/multicast?
Not us. We have a private circuit from Auckland and Wellington and we've used that to ship a single instance of the webcam streams to a new set of servers we've installed there at our expense. We've also installed a new set of servers in Wellington to support this again at our expense. We've also arranged for the webcam content to be served up in the US at two locations and we've shipped the webcam streams there once more at our expense. We've announced on three occasions on nznog that this is coming and that those who want to take advantage of the work we've done to make it a good experience for their customers need to arrange a peering session with the APE and WIX route servers. So we've worked hard and spent money to make this work. We aren't asking for a free ride but are seeking some sort of equitable solution. But there are still some NZ ISPs still haven't set up peering sessions presumably for some politico-commercial reasons.
Andy Linton wrote:
But how do you measure "similar size"?
Is it to do with financial size or traffic volumes? You can have a small company who has content that customers of a large ISP want e.g. webcams pointing at LOTR premiere venues. Under the model of companies of the same size that simply wouldn't happen.
I've always tried to avoid the term "interconnection" for two reasons:
1) On the Internet we're all interconnected - the question is how well?
2) Interconnection is telco speak for charging
Indeed. Thompson's arguments ignore the presumably mutual benefits of peering, so size doesn't seem to be a good criterion in this case. Keeping customers happy would seem to be a better one, but hey, that's just me... who happens to feel a bit miffed about being cut off from e.g. IDG Net for most of Tuesday, without any notice or warning from TelstraClear. Spanking your own customers to make a point is not nice. Since most of the national networks in NZ belong to either Telecom or TelstraClear, do I understand it right that there's no "route around" solution to this? -- Juha
No, the routing should have still allowed connectivity to ICONZ based sites, just via the US / Australia. The problem of being unable to access the sites was a caching fault. Since most of the national networks in NZ belong to either Telecom or TelstraClear, do I understand it right that there's no "route around" solution to this?
Tony Wicks wrote:
No, the routing should have still allowed connectivity to ICONZ based sites, just via the US / Australia. The problem of being unable to access the sites was a caching fault.
Cheers, was wondering why I could access some services but not connect to the Web sites. -- Juha
participants (5)
-
Andy Linton -
Joe Abley -
Juha Saarinen -
Paul Brislen -
Tony Wicks