<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">While that is true, mandated peering
would do the same job.<br>
<br>
On 09/11/12 09:22, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAANqdPeSp0s4T6ik_KqXVPjSga=_SXuxXbzpNY6b13tN18WynA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">The one major thing the "Gang of Four" arrangement has
given Australia is functioning domestic interconnect. ie. the
large networks all interconnect within Australia and do so in a
way that means latency is sane. Am dealing with countries in other
regions who actively use high latency (ie. sending your
connectivity via another continent) as a way of trying to force
you to buy THEIR transit product at high prices.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>MMC<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Mark
Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au" target="_blank">markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The
assertion was peering is free / gratis / no money. That's
clearly incorrect, and I don't think you need much more than
a simplification to realise it.<br>
<br>
It's worth remembering that the actual definition of the
word "peer" is<br>
<br>
"a person who is the same age or has the same social
position or the same abilities as other people in a group" <br>
<br>
i.e. an *equal* based on a set of attributes.<br>
<br>
Using Verizon as an example, Verizon's peering T&Cs list
who they consider to be somebody they'd be willing to
directly peer with, with lower requirements in ASPAC verses
the rest of the world. However, I doubt even Telstra would
qualify, so it's likely that Verizon also would like to get
out of the so-called Gang of Four arrangement, because
they're being forced to peer with non-equals. Telstra would
probably have the same view on Optus and AAPT, and Optus on
AAPT. Considering that AAPT is no where near as big as the
other 3 they'd be gaining the most and providing the least.<br>
<br>
Multilateral peering doesn't require the "peers" to be
apparent equals, however it is aggregating together the
value the small "peers" would provide such that there is
value to the larger "peers" to connect. Everybody who
connects gains more from connecting than it costs them.
Those who choose not to connect, in their judgement, don't
gain more from it than it would cost them, despite the many
values of peering that Sam Silvester pointed out, other than
just "cheaper than transit".<br>
<br>
Government forced peering means that some parties can get
far more value out of the arrangement than others - it isn't
mutually beneficial to everybody any more, in their
individual perception. If forced peering became the norm,
could I force my residential ISP to peer with my home
network, "for free"? If big networks must peer with smaller
networks, then my home network qualifies as a small one.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Bevan Slattery <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bevan@slattery.net.au">bevan@slattery.net.au</a>><br>
> To: Mark Smith <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au">markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au</a>>;
Luke Iggleden <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:luke%2Bausnog@sisgroup.com.au">luke+ausnog@sisgroup.com.au</a>><br>
> Cc: "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
</div>
<div class="im">> Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012 2:12 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Vocus vs. Pipe - Was: Vocus
peering traffic missingfrom PIPE-IX?<br>
><br>
</div>
> And those that want to peer don't?<br>
><br>
> TPG, iiNet and Nextgen are larger than AAPT and
Verizon. In fact TPG and<br>
> iiNet are larger than Optus in the ADSL market.<br>
><br>
> Oversimplification me thinks...<br>
><br>
> [b]<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> So the rack space, cable infrastructure,
routers, electricity, 24x7 NOC<br>
>> etc. that you use to connect to them, *if* you
qualify as a peer, is all<br>
>> free?<br>
>><br>
>> Think about it. A company spends millions of
dollars on equipment and<br>
>> installs fibre across Australia, and is then
going to let everybody use<br>
>> it for gratis? That's a business plan to very
rapidly go out of<br>
> business.<br>
>> I suspect the "free peering" myth has come from
the days when<br>
> residential<br>
>> ADSL offered "free Pipe". The only reason it
was "free"<br>
> to customers was<br>
>> that the ISP chose not to bill the customers
for it.<br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"
target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>