🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <slrn7em7kf.9ob.ese002@spica.exile.org>,
	ese002@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) writes:
> On 13 Mar 1999 23:52:32 GMT, 
> newhouse at rockhead dot com <newhouse@nospam.crap> wrote:
>>In article <slrn7ej45a.6bf.ese002@spica.exile.org>,
>>	ese002@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) writes:
>>> It's a bit fuzzier for large ISP's with private backbones (like Concentric).
>>> I expect backbones that wish to provide service for other ISP's to use 
>>> private peering.
>>
>>It might be fuzzier for you. 
> 
> ISP1 -> private backbone -> NAP -> backbone2 -> ISP2
> 
> is clearly better than

Not at all clearly. You are asuming that because it is private it is
therefore better.  It could be really bad.
 
> ISP1 -> backbone1 -> private peer -> backbone2 -> ISP2
> 
> Really? 

Maybe but, not by definition.

> Even the optimistic case:
> 
> ISP1 -> private backbone -> NAP -> ISP2
> 
> Could be a lose if the congestion at the NAP is bad enough.

Could be a lose at the private peering points for the same reasons.

>>The idea that 'Real backbones" don't connect where the connecting is
>>happening is pretty strange.  Real backbones connect to a lot of places.
> 
> Yes they do.  But they don't do *all* their peering at the NAP's.  A 

You are the one who suggested real tier 1 providers peer privately, and that
it was somehow superior because it was private. And that they avoided the 
MAE's and NAP's.

> NAP peer is not as good as private peer.  

That is not a given and it really depends on what the point of the peering is.

> It's better than no peer but if the there is enough traffic to justify it, 
> it is better to use a private peer.  

With that qualification I agree.  If you are exchange a large amount of 
traffic with a subset of providers it can make sense to setup a private
peering arangement with them. Wny bog down the MAE's and NAP's with a lot
of well know traffic patterns.  It makes sense and it relieves the more
popular peering points of a lot of traffic that just causes congestion.
That doesn't make it a superior scheme, except in the econimic sense. It makes 
it useful and sensible under certain circumstances.

> And bigger backbones are more likely to have enough cross traffic to justify 
> private peers among them.  

And that can be relative.  Larger local ISP's could find it benefical to
set up local "private" peering. As a number of Denver ISP's found out.

> A backbone provider that does all of their peering at NAP's is at a severe 
> disadvantage to larger backbones who use private peering.

That's not at all clear as a general statement.  Most private peering is
driven by economics.  They still peer at MAE's & NAP's because it makes 
sense to do so.

If the two largest backbones only peered at a private peering point that
means they only peer with each other.  Holy PSINet Batman, that would make a 
lot of sense.  How long do you think it would take customers to abandon those
carriers?

Paul
-- 
Use that connection!! Idle connections are the devil's playground!!
I, the Diabolical Ruler of the Universe, command it, OC-192 to every residence.
I'm a low resistance pure metal, so don't get me started.