On 25 Nov 2003, at 08:19, Steve Withers wrote:
They also refuse to peer with AT&T anymore. To be
fair, AT&T in the US
treated TC the same way TC is treating ICONZ......sad to say.
The crux of the matter is that some network operators in New Zealand
have started thinking about peering as a business issue rather than a
technical one. This is nothing new in the context of the whole network,
and it's not unknown within NZ either -- how many small ISPs were ever
able to do zero-settlement peering with 4648?
The question of whether the business decision in question is the right
one is really a matter for TCL and their owners. But if you assume for
a second that as a business decision it makes sense, then all TCL are
doing is what they are supposed to be doing as a commercial company --
trying to maximise their profits. They're not a government department,
and they're not a charity.
Telstra in Australia control the major peering
point(s) and they charge
by the MB for traffic - to everyone.
This might have been kind of true, once, almost, but it's not really an
accurate statement now. There are numerous other peering facilities in
major centres all round Australia where you can interconnect with
substantial chunks of the Australian Internet.
If the general peering situation in New Zealand has been less messed up
than Australia, though, then that's mainly due to CLEAR (and, to some
extent, Telstra NZ) for providing competition to Telecom early in the
game and effectively avoiding the single-carrier dominance that
happened for so long over the ditch.
Also remember that it was people working at CLEAR who came up with the
APE in the first place, and built it with assistance from their friends
at Citylink. CLEAR and Plain were the first people to peer there.
If CLEAR and Telstra NZ had not been willing to peer with people for so
long at the APE, it's entirely possible that it would never have
reached critical mass, and might not have grown to the size it is
> I, and the ICONZ engineering staff, are currently
treating this as
> and looking for a nice way to route around it.
This is absolutely the right approach. Wailing and gnashing of teeth is
not going to make anything better. Here are some ideas, in no
1. Become a customer of TelstraClear.
2. Become a customer of someone who peers with TelstraClear (maybe just
pay to receive 4768, 9901, 7714, 4763 and friends, and for your routes
to be propagated to those ASes)
3. Become a customer of someone who is a customer of TelstraClear
(maybe as above).
4. Peer with everybody you can at the APE and the WIX to maximise the
amount of traffic you can send and receive without per-traffic cost, to
mitigate the cost of reaching an exchange (Auckland) or the exchange
reaching you (Wellington).
5. If you are able to interconnect with other networks in other
innovative/cheap ways, do that. Build an exchange point. Drop a bit of
cat5 down a riser to the ISP on the next floor. Sling a radio shot
between rooftops. Negotiate for an extra pair of fibres across town
from whomever is selling you dark fibre, and peer with the person on
the other end of it.
TelstraClear are presumably expecting that enough people do (1) that
they win, especially if it means these peoplle stop being customers of
Sprint, or Global Crossing, or someone else competing for international
The success of the APE and the WIX notwithstanding, maybe people have
been lulled into not doing enough of (4) and (5), and have been relying
too much on one or two peering sessions with big networks to shift
their local packets locally. Maybe people should do more of (4) and
(5). (4) and (5) are fun :-)
If any company - telecoms, toilet paper or toast -
decides to behave in
an amoral way, then society must impose the 'public good' on
them....just as we do on any sociopathic person....or in this case, a
I think you're confusing amorality with immorality.