[c-nsp] Routing Problem - MCI/GT/Level3 - Puzzled

[John van Oppen]

It is probably worth noting that actually GT probably has a lot more
peers too...   MCI most likely only has more "customer peers".

For example I work at a regional tier2 provider, and MCI is reachable
via transit to us, but GT peers with us directly (settlement free) given
that it is pretty obvious how we set our local-pref.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stewart [mailto:paul at paulstewart.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:12 AM
To: 'Gert Doering'
Cc: John van Oppen; 'Pete Templin'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Routing Problem - MCI/GT/Level3 - Puzzled

Actually, I should have worded my email better... I understand and agree
with what you are saying... makes total sense unfortunately.... we were
just
surprised how *much* difference that makes...

We have Level(3) as well and don't see that same effect...;)

Take care,

Paul
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at greenie.muc.de] 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:01 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: 'John van Oppen'; 'Pete Templin'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Routing Problem - MCI/GT/Level3 - Puzzled

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:17:44AM -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Yes, AS701 for us here in North America...:)  We have known that GT 
> has a lot of peers and have done a great job in that respect...
> 
> We're just surprised that MCI doesn't have "reach" given their sheer 
> size in comparison....

You misunderstand.  If MCI has a lot more *peers*, while GT has
*upstreams*,
other provider will prefer GT to MCI, because they get money from GT -
and
not from MCI.

So the problem is not "MCI not big enough" but "GT being too small".

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
 
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025
gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de