Who'll carry the cold potato?

Internet backbone providers are waiting attentively to hear how GTE Internetworking and Exodus Communications will resolve their differences about peering. It's a conflict that's been brewing for some time among various Internet players, and the resolution will have an impact beyond the two parties that have escalated the matter to crisis status.

Exodus is one of several backbone providers, including Frontier Corp.'s Global Center unit, that offers distributed data centers to corporate customers-companies with popular Web sites to which huge numbers of Internet users connect. The idea is to provide better performance for end users by offering the same content in multiple locations on the network, minimizing the distance any user's information requests have to travel before reaching one of the sites.

The problem, according to GTE, is that end users on its network typically send only a few mouse clicks' worth of traffic to Web sites on the Exodus network, while those Web sites send much more information back to the user. Because the traffic levels are so far out of balance, GTE no longer wants to exchange traffic with Exodus for free.

The counter-argument is that popular Web sites add value to the Internet experience for end users served by GTE. Some backbone providers have chosen to peer with companies like Exodus and Frontier at or near their data centers specifically so customers could have faster access to some of these Web sites.

It's not the first time Internet providers have argued about peering-or how to exchange traffic destined for one another's customers. A few years ago, the largest backbone providers broke with Internet tradition by refusing to exchange traffic for free with smaller providers.

Now, as before, economic imperatives likely will prevail. The cost of bandwidth is a major part of any communication carrier's operating costs-and the telcos that have bought themselves a controlling share of the Internet backbone are accustomed to basing prices on bandwidth levels. Bandwidth costs are most critical for companies like GTE that have global backbones, says Barbara Dooley, executive director for the Commercial Internet Exchange. In some cases, GTE or other backbone providers could be hauling traffic from some of these popular Web sites halfway around the world.

Of course, if other backbone providers do not follow GTE's lead in getting tough on data center operators, this could backfire on GTE, as Joel Maloff, principal of Maloff Group International, points out. Exodus could choose to reach GTE's customers through transit arrangements with other backbone providers-and GTE's customers then might receive poorer-quality connections to Exodus customers. But I suspect GTE will not be the only backbone provider seeking to change the economic equation.

Potentially, data center operators-like some of the smaller Internet backbone providers-may find themselves paying for peering. Alternatively, backbone providers may consider changing current "hot potato" routing procedures.

Traditionally, the sending network treats outbound messages like a hot potato, handing them off to the receiving network at the closest possible point. If these routing methods were reversed, data center operators would keep outbound traffic on their own networks until closer to the recipient, transferring much of the bandwidth cost to the data center operator.

One Internet infrastructure maven I spoke with said it should be possible to make wider use of "cold potato" routing. Others expressed some doubt. In either case, it sounds like an opportunity for router vendors.

Who should carry the cold potato is just one of numerous issues facing Internet backbone providers now that the original public peering points have become overloaded. Another trend has been for groups of regional Internet players to establish their own peering sites so they can exchange locally destined traffic near the point of origin. This leaves a core group of backbone providers collecting fees for carrying traffic outside the region.

In general, the concept of peering, is alien to those with traditional telco backgrounds. In telecom, closely prescribed rules govern traffic handoff, and money often changes hands in the process. As the telecom mentality begins to have more influence in the Internet market, we should expect free peering to continue to decline. But as the Internet continues its tremendous growth, those telcos that fail to understand peering trends do so at their own peril.