The wacky, weird world of not peering
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/60FED800168312AECC2572A0001A299 7 ... Thankfully we have heard that Telecom is reconsidering its approach and we say it is about time. With continued data growth, IP-based voice and video becoming widespread, and an increasing number of networks being developed, it is critical that local data is kept local and the most efficient paths across the network are utilised. Telecom has recently been reported in the media as saying it is seriously looking at and now supports the concept of local internet interconnection. Rumours abound of a June/July timetable. Of course for their customers, and TelstraClear's, one would expect they never stopped local interconnection, but this move would re-integrate Telecom with the rest of the internet at a local level. ...
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Philip D'Ath wrote:
Telecom has recently been reported in the media as saying it is seriously looking at and now supports the concept of local internet interconnection. Rumours abound of a June/July timetable. Of course for their customers, and TelstraClear's, one would expect they never stopped local interconnection, but this move would re-integrate Telecom with the rest of the internet at a local level.
Ah, yes, but will it be neutral peering? Or will their marketroids lead the charge yet again with the concept of charge-by-the-byte peering - followed, yet again, by an unequivocal middle-finger salute from the wider 'net community? Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but it's a bit hard to swallow that everyone's favourite monopolist telco has suddenly turned over a new leaf on the topic of how it connects to the rest of the country. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 09:22 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Philip D'Ath wrote:
Telecom has recently been reported in the media as saying it is seriously looking at and now supports the concept of local internet interconnection. Rumours abound of a June/July timetable. Of course for their customers, and TelstraClear's, one would expect they never stopped local interconnection, but this move would re-integrate Telecom with the rest of the internet at a local level.
Ah, yes, but will it be neutral peering?
As in the same policy for everyone?
Or will their marketroids lead the charge yet again with the concept of charge-by-the-byte peering
I have some grey hair so memory might fail me but I don't recall either telco ever charging by the byte for a peering session. Consumer land sure, but that's a completely different matter. jamie
Hey guys, As we're on a discussion about peering, can anyone recall the link Joe Abley sent out with traffic graphs, or am I dreaming it? I'm wondering how much traffic the F-root's are doing locally. Cheers Barry
On 21-Mar-2007, at 23:30, Barry Murphy wrote:
As we're on a discussion about peering, can anyone recall the link Joe Abley sent out with traffic graphs, or am I dreaming it? I'm wondering how much traffic the F-root's are doing locally.
I don't think there's a public URL that shows F-root traffic in Auckland, but if you're an OARC member you can get access. The other option is to ask here :-) Remember it's not the amount of traffic that matters with root servers; it's the fact that they are locally available. When the wet string breaks, it's good to know that names under .nz can still be resolved from isolated servers with empty caches. Joe
On 22/03/2007, at 12:06 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 21-Mar-2007, at 23:30, Barry Murphy wrote:
As we're on a discussion about peering, can anyone recall the link Joe Abley sent out with traffic graphs, or am I dreaming it? I'm wondering how much traffic the F-root's are doing locally.
I don't think there's a public URL that shows F-root traffic in Auckland, but if you're an OARC member you can get access. The other option is to ask here :-)
Remember it's not the amount of traffic that matters with root servers; it's the fact that they are locally available. When the wet string breaks, it's good to know that names under .nz can still be resolved from isolated servers with empty caches.
That's curious, what are the 3 non-unicast packets per second? IGP? -- Nathan Ward
On 22-Mar-2007, at 01:31, Nathan Ward wrote:
That's curious, what are the 3 non-unicast packets per second? IGP?
I just looked, and it seems like the answer is OSPF v2 and OSPF v3, with occasional sprinklings of ARP (at least, for the short interval I was tcpdumping on the same subnet as the nameservers). Joe
Philip D'Ath wrote:
Thankfully we have heard that Telecom is reconsidering its approach and we say it is about time. With continued data growth, IP-based voice and video becoming widespread, and an increasing number of networks being developed, it is critical that local data is kept local and the most efficient paths across the network are utilised.
Telecom has recently been reported in the media as saying it is seriously looking at and now supports the concept of local internet interconnection. Rumours abound of a June/July timetable. Of course for their customers, and TelstraClear’s, one would expect they never stopped local interconnection, but this move would re-integrate Telecom with the rest of the internet at a local level.
um.
surely, the best way to prove to the telco's that peering locally (I am
gathering, you all mean 'for free' as well) is to prove it by creating a
mass exodus of customers to the ISP's that DO peer.
if this was such a huge issue, then why has this not happened ? if
peering is really all that everyone claims it is, then surely, customers
would be leaving en-mass to the greener shores of low latency to the
rest of
participants (7)
-
Barry Murphy
-
jamie baddeley
-
Joe Abley
-
Matthew Poole
-
Nathan Ward
-
Philip D'Ath
-
Steve Phillips