New Zealand the trendsetter - US de-peering
On 1/11/2008, at 8:57 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-30-2008/0004915721&EDATE=
Why do we say NZ the trend setter? TelstraClear/Telecom de-peering weren't the first in the world I don't think. -- Nathan Ward
On 2008-10-31, at 18:25, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 1/11/2008, at 8:57 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-30-2008/0004915721&EDATE=
Why do we say NZ the trend setter? TelstraClear/Telecom de-peering weren't the first in the world I don't think.
It never seemed to me that Telecom de-peered anybody, in any grand sense; they just didn't peer very widely to start with. TelstraClear de-peered a lot of people a while ago, but traceroute seems to suggest to me that Telecom wasn't one of them. 3 ggis-gige-v906.telstraclear.net (203.98.18.67) 3.011 ms 2.948 ms 2.843 ms 4 g0-1-0.tkcr3.global-gateway.net.nz (210.55.202.50) 2.959 ms 3.111 ms 2.822 ms Joe
It never seemed to me that Telecom de-peered anybody, in any grand sense; they just didn't peer very widely to start with.
Except yesterday at 1710 when they appeared to drop everything on the floor for about 5 minutes :( regards Peter Mott Swizzle | Wholesale Hosted Servers +64 21 279 4995 -/-
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Dean Pemberton
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-30-2008/0004915721&EDATE=
Sprints side of the story - https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php Scott
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 06:46, Scott Howard
Sprints side of the story - https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
"Cogent sought a peering trial agreement in the hopes that it would lead to settlement-free peering status with Sprint. Settlement-free peering is a contractual relationship in which two companies exchange Internet traffic without charging each other. This arrangement is only fair if the two parties exchange roughly equal volumes of traffic across the two networks." Still pushing this intuitively credible nonsense. There isn't a single byte exchanged that wasn't either sent or requested by a customer. The asymmetry is a customer artifact (which Cogent can hardly be expected to remedy, except with, oh, of course, money) and Sprint should charge their customers appropriately, not attempt to extort fees from Cogent. It would be good to look forward to a future without the long, long shadow of "only sender pays" postal settlements justifying simple greed and obfuscating the exploitation of market power to reduce competition. For that is all de-peering is.
Scott
Hamish. -- http://tr.im/HKM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hamish MacEwan wrote: | | It would be good to look forward to a future without the long, long | shadow of "only sender pays" postal settlements justifying simple | greed and obfuscating the exploitation of market power to reduce | competition. For that is all de-peering is. | It wouldn't be so bad if "only sender pays" was the actual model, and you could connect for a distinctly nominal fee (thinking along the lines of $5/month for a home DSL connection, for example) on the basis of paying per-byte for everything that left your connection. Instead there really is the "clip it both ways" model being attempted, and that's just ar$e. - -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkPTS0ACgkQTdEtTmUCdpysUgCffvscSgo/oAB4Qh4EtCGHVq0k JWsAoLfcObOIj1Ze6nLUm7LZXQybSVYb =t0k5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 2008-11-03, at 13:15, Hamish MacEwan wrote:
Still pushing this intuitively credible nonsense. There isn't a single byte exchanged that wasn't either sent or requested by a customer. The asymmetry is a customer artifact (which Cogent can hardly be expected to remedy, except with, oh, of course, money) and Sprint should charge their customers appropriately, not attempt to extort fees from Cogent.
Extortion is nonsense. What you're seeing is two competitors leveraging their respective advantages and hoping for commercial gain. As far as "charge their customers appropriately" goes, I've had experience of various transit products from various people, and I would say to a large extent you get what you pay for. Oh, and choice is good. Joe
participants (7)
-
Dean Pemberton -
Hamish MacEwan -
Joe Abley -
Matthew Poole -
Nathan Ward -
Peter Mott -
Scott Howard