A read through this New York Times article on derivatives clearing, and the exclusivity that big banks seek to maintain, would look very much like an article on large-scale peering, to someone who is not expert in both topics. The transit-free club and the "derivatives dealers club" may have other similarities in the future, and it's worth watching how further government regulation develops in this area. It may lead to insight into how government might eventually regulate ISPs seeking to become settlement-free.
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 01:36:08PM -0500, Jeff Wheeler said: >A read through this New York Times article on derivatives clearing, >and the exclusivity that big banks seek to maintain, would look very >much like an article on large-scale peering, to someone who is not >expert in both topics. The transit-free club and the "derivatives >dealers club" may have other similarities in the future, and it's >worth watching how further government regulation develops in this >area. It may lead to insight into how government might eventually >regulate ISPs seeking to become settlement-free.
dont think so. 'cyber' is a panicword, results in way different regulations.
also, the top player's influences through backchannels on the regulation process would be vastly different in those two industries.
/kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Wheeler > Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:36 AM > To: na...@nanog.org > Subject: peering, derivatives, and big brother
> A read through this New York Times article on derivatives clearing, > and the exclusivity that big banks seek to maintain, would look very > much like an article on large-scale peering, to someone who is not > expert in both topics. The transit-free club and the "derivatives > dealers club" may have other similarities in the future, and it's > worth watching how further government regulation develops in this > area. It may lead to insight into how government might eventually > regulate ISPs seeking to become settlement-free.
I don't see how this can happen with the number of wide open exchanges that exist these days. Take the several Equinix IX exchange points as an example. They aren't controlled by any cartel of participants who dictate who can and who cannot play. Each network sets their own peering policy. As most of the traffic is from content heavy networks to eyeball heavy networks, direct peering between them makes sense.
The financial derivatives market isn't, in my opinion, a good analogy of the peering market. A data packet is "perishable" and must be moved quickly. The destination network wants the packet in order to keep their customer happy and the originating network wants to get it to that customer as quickly and cheaply as possible. The proliferation of these peering points means that today there is more traffic going directly from content network to eyeball network. To use a different analogy, it is almost like the market is going to a series of farmer's markets rather than supermarkets in the distribution channel. Sure, there are still the "supermarkets" out there, but increasingly they are selling their "store brand" by becoming content hosting networks themselves.
I would expect with the current direction of interconnectivity, third party transit traffic would become a decreasing percentage of the aggregate total bandwidth a network moves. Or at least the third party transit traffic becomes smaller amounts of traffic from a larger number of sources with the big sources of traffic connecting to the big sinks of traffic directly and third party transit collecting the crumbs (albeit probably a large amount of crumbs).
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 19:36 -0800, George Bonser wrote: > (...) The financial derivatives market isn't, in my opinion, a good analogy of > the peering market. A data packet is "perishable" and must be moved > quickly. The destination network wants the packet in order to keep > their customer happy and the originating network wants to get it to that > customer as quickly and cheaply as possible. The proliferation of these > peering points means that today there is more traffic going directly > from content network to eyeball network. To use a different analogy, it > is almost like the market is going to a series of farmer's markets > rather than supermarkets in the distribution channel. Sure, there are > still the "supermarkets" out there, but increasingly they are selling > their "store brand" by becoming content hosting networks themselves. (...)
Hi,
The electricity spot market is close to your definition of "perishable":
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:28 PM, George Bonser <gbon...@seven.com> wrote: > > The electricity spot market is close to your definition of > > "perishable":
-----Original Message----- From: Laurent GUERBY [mailto:laur...@guerby.net] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:07 PM To: George Bonser
Cc: na...@nanog.org Subject: Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 19:36 -0800, George Bonser wrote: > (...) The financial derivatives market isn't, in my opinion, a good > analogy of the peering market. A data packet is "perishable" and must
> be moved quickly. The destination network wants the packet in order > to keep their customer happy and the originating network wants to get > it to that customer as quickly and cheaply as possible. The > proliferation of these peering points means that today there is more > traffic going directly from content network to eyeball network. To > use a different analogy, it is almost like the market is going to a > series of farmer's markets rather than supermarkets in the > distribution channel. Sure, there are still the "supermarkets" out > there, but increasingly they are selling their "store brand" by > becoming content hosting networks themselves. (...)
Hi,
The electricity spot market is close to your definition of "perishable":
Invisible Hand Networks was really meant to be a spot market. The same problem exists with bandwidth spot markets that always has existed, the cost of ports to maintain sufficient capacity to the exchange, and the lack of critical mass, meaning that the spot bandwidth is either pretty expensive, or there is not enough capacity for any serious application. Certainly, no spot bandwidth market currently in existence can compete with even mid-sized CDNs; and I do not believe that will ever change.
The IHN folks were also disadvantaged because they seemed to know a lot about economics, but basically nothing about networks. So their technology was neat from a reporting perspective, but the actual functioning their exchange fabric was/is a disaster.
I do not know if they are still in business or if they are still constrained by the flawed design they had in place several years ago.
-- Jeff S Wheeler <j...@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
<ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com> wrote: > I remember 5 years ago a company called Invisible Hand Networks that > tried something like that.
> Cheers > Ryan
> -----Original Message----- > From: Laurent GUERBY [mailto:laur...@guerby.net] > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:07 PM > To: George Bonser > Cc: na...@nanog.org > Subject: Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother
> On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 19:36 -0800, George Bonser wrote: >> (...) The financial derivatives market isn't, in my opinion, a good >> analogy of the peering market. A data packet is "perishable" and must
>> be moved quickly. The destination network wants the packet in order >> to keep their customer happy and the originating network wants to get >> it to that customer as quickly and cheaply as possible. The >> proliferation of these peering points means that today there is more >> traffic going directly from content network to eyeball network. To >> use a different analogy, it is almost like the market is going to a >> series of farmer's markets rather than supermarkets in the >> distribution channel. Sure, there are still the "supermarkets" out >> there, but increasingly they are selling their "store brand" by >> becoming content hosting networks themselves. (...)
> Hi,
> The electricity spot market is close to your definition of "perishable":
> From: Jeff Wheeler > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:24 PM > To: na...@nanog.org > Subject: Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother
> Invisible Hand Networks was really meant to be a spot market. The > same problem exists with bandwidth spot markets that always has > existed, the cost of ports to maintain sufficient capacity to the > exchange, and the lack of critical mass, meaning that the spot > bandwidth is either pretty expensive, or there is not enough capacity > for any serious application. Certainly, no spot bandwidth market > currently in existence can compete with even mid-sized CDNs; and I do > not believe that will ever change.
The only way I could imagine it working is something like Equinix does with their Equinix Direct product
What I really miss is the old Telseon model. If I had a Telseon connection, I could configure a "logical wire" to any other Telseon customer (basically provision a vlan through their fabric between us) with a web interface. I could call the other end, we agree to create the path, I configure it on the web page, they accept it, the next day there is a path between us. It was a beautiful system. If I wanted to adjust my bandwidth cap on any of the "logical wires", I that was done with a web interface, too. I could raise it for a week and drop it back down and pay only for what I used. It was billed daily at the configured bandwidth cap. Problem was that many of the colo providers hated it as it allowed people basically unencumbered access to any other Telseon customer within 24 hours. Some absolutely refused to allow Telseon into their data centers, others insisted on placing their sales force in the path destroying the value of the product. It was wonderful, I miss it.
