Print

Print
1) Some parties don't like peering, and were forced to peer due to some legacy agreement, or because they bought someone who did peer, and now they are stuck.
2) Some companies feel that traffic needs to be equal in BOTH directions in order to increase a peer, not just 1.
3) Some companies are out of peering capacity in many cities, and what you have is what you can get.
4) Some companies forget (yes, really) that they peer with you, and if you have to contact them for more peering, they yank the peering and start a sales process.


This is just some of what I know has happened with various companies in the past...

Reid


On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Jeremy Lumby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Reid,
 
    I knew I might open up a can of worms since I do not have a whole lot of peering experience.  Could you mention a couple hypothetical situations to help some of the less experienced members better understand some of the issues.
 
Jeremy

From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Potential MICE member agreement

Speaking from experience, and NOT as a Hurricane employee, you are thinking it is easy to expand peering. Trust us, it isn't. Its not just emailing them and connecting a new cable. There are MANY reasons why some peers are what they are. Again, let me state that I am NOT talking as a Hurricane Employee. Thus, as a member of the steering committee, I would have to vote against any agreement which tries to understand peering agreements. 

Reid



On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Jeremy Lumby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I have not heard much discussion of maintenance fees lately, however a recent set of two situations brought an idea to the front of my mind.  Should MICE have a very basic agreement with each of its members?  The reason I bring this up is that we want to keep everyone's experience with the community positive.  For example the agreement could contain a requirement to upgrade your connection if it is saturated to the point of causing packet loss (which I would assume members would want to do on their own).

The reason I bring this up is because in the past few months I have run across carriers that I am purchasing from that had saturated peering.  The two different carriers had two completely different approaches, and the second one concerns me, and is the reason I bring up the MICE agreement.  The first was with Hurricane.  They had a saturated link to Charter in Chicago.  Within an hour of emailing in the details of what I had found to support, they had confirmed the issue, started sending me regular updates until the link upgrade was completed.  Due to the short time period that this trouble ticket lasted, I felt it went much better than I would have hoped.

The second issue was with Cogent.  They had, and possibly still have a saturated peering link with TimeWarner in Chicago.  It took me 3 emails with support across 2 business days to get them to believe the issue existed, and then once they got on the same page as me, the would not even provide me with updates on if they will even fix the issue.  I have included their final support email below.  After waiting a few days hoping they would just fix it, I was forced to manipulate BGP to avoid this saturated link.

The bottom line is I bring this up because even though I am a paying customer of both carriers, the second situation made me feel powerless, and that I was not valued as a customer.  I realize that they probably have their legal reasons to keep me in the dark, however it has now made me an unhappy customer, and if there was a simple agreement in place about how the peering link should be maintained, then there would be a timeframe for this to be resolved within.

Jeremy

-----Original Message-----
From: Cogent Help Desk [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 7:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: #HD0000005266692-RE: Related Case: HD0000005265974-Packet Loss for customer TWINCITY00001

Dear Cogent Customer,

The latency and/or packet loss that you are experiencing to this destination is due to occasional high traffic with our peer TimeWarner . Our peering engineers have made them aware of the continuing issue and are pending their response. Cogent is ready to act as soon as we have cooperation from our peer and they are ready to move forward. There is no estimated time of resolve.

Please understand that Cogent does not discuss peering specific plans with our customers. Our customer support group will not be able to provide regular updates in regard to peer maintenance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us by e-mail at [log in to unmask] or by phone at 877-7COGENT (877-726-4368).

Thank You,

Cogent Communications
T 877.726.4368, option 2
F 202.295.9061
E [log in to unmask]

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1




--
Reid Fishler


To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1


To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1




--
Reid Fishler
Director
Hurricane Electric
+1-510-580-4178

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1