mailing list archives
Re: peering charges?
From: Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:43:56 -0500 (EST)
Yes, and the current peering requirements are enough to keep most small
ISPs from growing. I am spending 10s of thousands a month over what I need
to spend just because people want to see full DS3 network. I can
understand people would want me to be at all NAPs, but why should I need
10X the bandwidth I need for my customers?
There are also problems with providers saying that I need to be at every
NAP they are at, but what do I do when say a NAP in the east can't give me
a connection? They first don't want to let me in at all, then they say
that we can't connect until they get a new gigaswitch. I was able to get a
gigaswitch for my NAP in 24 hours, why would it take 6 weeks?
Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc.
If you're talking about Pennsauken, it's because they engineer everything
down to the cable layouts in exquisite detail, which makes for high latency
in getting set up there, but excellent NAP operation.
Pennsauken currently has 2 gigas, with one configured as backup for the
other, and each router connected into both. So there are some added
complexities if they're out of ports on both... An operational NAP can be
more difficult to expand than one with few or no customers (not picking
on anyone here).
So they both might have to figure out the engineering of it - and that
engineering will be detailed and well-planned in advance (i.e. takes
many sometimes-frustrating-for-others months).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: peering charges? Eric D. Madison (Jan 27)