When it comes to winning your Internet access business, the big carriers go at each other tooth and nail. But behind the scenes, the Internet service providers are getting chummier all the time.
ISPs such as MCI Communications Corp. and Sprint Corp. are deploying an increasing number of high-speed links among their networks that enable them to exchange Internet traffic without going through the overcrowded hubs that handle the bulk of 'Net traffic today. These so-called private peering arrangements promise to improve service reliability and help the carriers prepare to offer quality-of-service (QoS) guarantees to corporate customers.
Private peering connections let ISPs sidestep the network access points (NAP) and metropolitan-area exchanges (MAE). The NAPs and MAEs were created in mid-1995 as Internet exchange points when the National Science Foundation retired its NSFnet Internet backbone. Concern about packet loss and traffic overloads at these exchange sites is often cited in apocalyptic reports about the meltdown of the Internet.
In establishing private peering arrangements, the ISPs are, in essence, sidestepping the NAP problems. Deploying links of T-3 (45M bit/sec) and above, the carriers can minimize traffic hops and improve reliability and response times.
"Direct peering offers end users a higher grade of services because the network is better controlled," said Robert Hagens, director of Internet engineering at MCI.
Private peering started in late 1995 but is taking off today. MCI is leading the way with more than 30 private peering agreements. Sprint trails MCI with half that many private links, but has a leg up on UUNET Technologies, PSINet, Inc., BBN Planet and IBM Global Network (see graphic).
ISPs typically establish direct connections in pairs, splitting the responsibility for managing the connections. They use a common routing protocol, called the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4, that is a standard for communication among network providers. The protocol lets each ISP know if there is a line failure, what route is available and where the traffic will be sent, Hagens said.
Analysts and ISPs agree that private peering offers a more reliable method of exchanging traffic than the NAPs - primarily because ISPs do not have much control over what happens at those sites. ISPs can quickly reroute traffic and fix a problem when it crops up on their dedicated links, but they are at the mercy of a third party if a router or a dedicated link goes south at the big hub sites.
"Private peering improves the robustness of an ISP's services and offers an alternative path for traffic in the case of a network outage or serious congestion," said Rebecca Wetzel, director of Internet Services at TeleChoice, Inc., a Verona, N.J.-based consultancy. "Users will see better performance. In fact, if the ISPs weren't doing this, users would definitely know about it."
"This is a trend born of necessity,"said Alan Taffel, vice president of marketing and business development at UUNET. "Our traffic load is doubling every three to four months. In fact, all ISPs in general are seeing this type of traffic growth. We pulled out of the MAEs to help the Internet."
Concentric Network Corp., one of the smaller national ISPs, currently has a peering agreement with MCI and is looking to establish others, said Jeff Ronoldi, product line manager at San-Jose, Calif.-based Concentric. "We are trying to move away from public peering points because of congestion," Ronoldi said.
While private peering was developed by ISPs to prevent roadblocks on the Internet, the dedicated connections seem to be logical steps toward QoS guarantees, said Joel Maloff, president at The Maloff Co., a Dexter, Mich.-based consulting firm. But, he points out, this will take a lot of engineering and trust between ISPs.
Service level agreements (SLA) are difficult to establish when traffic goes through a NAP or MAE site. Because private peering establishes a clear, high-bandwidth line between two ISPs, traffic traveling over that connection could be monitored and controlled more closely.
Two providers that offer the same level of packet loss and compatible QoS agreements to their customers could extend their guarantees across each other's networks, said John Curran, chief technical officer at BBN Planet. "This could only happen with a private interconnection,"he said. "We haven't seen this yet, but if customers demand these types of service level guarantees, then it could happen."
That is something that users who are developing Web-based applications clearly want. "We have a product going up in May that will let 20,000 of our 401K clients access their accounts and make transactions through our Web site," said Tod Bryant, director of information systems at New York Life Benefit Services, Inc., a Norwood, Mass.-based company. New York Life has SLAs with its clients, similar to what it has with UUNET, its ISP.
New York Life's competitors are likely to come out with similar Web services for 401K clients, Bryant said, but "if we could extend [performance] guarantees to our clients, this would benefit us competitively," Bryant said.
