[AusNOG] Domestic Peering WAS: Vocus peering traffic missingfrom PIPE-IX?

[Joshua D'Alton]

If AAPT are offering deals down to the $15/Mbit level I'd think reliability
is probably not a great concern, even if you were a business grade ISP.
Without knowing their exact situation it would make sense that them
charging more for transit probably wouldn't help reliability as much as
people would think. With players like Exetel iiNet and TPG gathering
transit from them, you can be fairly sure that 'transit' is still domestic
for AAPT, more than likely just to another Go4. In other words, cheap.

It is certainly needed to help reduce the number of situations where a
provider will sign with someone like NTT for their transit, terminate it in
Sydney, and let NTT do whatever they want with it after it leaves AU
shores, since by that point it is going to be high-latency regardless. And
for things like Office365 online, latency to SG really doesn't matter.

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Chris Ricks <chris.ricks at securepay.com.au>wrote:

> A few years ago, I was speaking to James Linton and Glen Ward from
> Exetel about some of our services.
>
> Glen was ex-Optus and mentioned that the peering arrangement was more of
> a "swap" than straight settlement-free, whatever that means.
>
> Regarding AAPT, they seem to be more aggressively competing for transit
> deals at present. Exetel seemingly have the majority of their transit
> capacity with them, iiNet and TPG have fairly decent transit with them
> and quite a few people I've spoken to are getting approaches from them.
>
> That said, they'd need to sort out their reliability issues to get
> decent traction in the market one would think.
>
>
> On 09/11/12 15:26, Sam Silvester wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org>
> wrote:
> >> So I think the best path out of this mess is to lobby the ACCC to
> >> repeal their GoF decision, to de-regulate peering.
> > I agree with this. Once you are regulating this, it becomes
> > 'exclusive' and thus less about the 'value' that Brad, Mark and myself
> > have mentioned and far more about looking to the Govt for direction.
> >
> > Looking at the various IXes around Australia, it seems that if it
> > makes sense (cost, latency, <insert your particular definition of
> > 'value' here>), network operators are by and large (yes, corporates
> > could be more involved, but still) making good choices about
> > interconnecting via either MPLA or bilateral links.
> >
> > I wonder - what would happen to AAPT's peering if the current GoF
> > decision went away?
> >
> > Sam
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20121109/dca0bb51/attachment.html>