Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: peering charges?
From: "Danny Stroud" <dannystroud () msn com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 17:10:15 UT

I am encouraged (not that any of you care what I feel) that there is so much 
dialogue about the market dynamics surrounding this subject. It seems to be a 
new focus (versus a more esoteric, technical focus) that I believe will drive 
the industry to making itself a better place for customers. We, the operators, 
have a challenge to make the 'net an economically viable industry. Right now 
it is not, but we seem to be headed in the right direction. des

From:  owner-nanog () merit edu on behalf of Eric D. Madison
Sent:  Monday, January 27, 1997 8:09 AM
To:  Vadim Antonov
Cc:  davec () ziplink net; nanog () merit edu
Subject:  Re: peering charges?

Your right on that last comment about market share.. say your MCI and you
have a smaller provider that wants to peer with you, you had rather have
them buy a pipe than let the peer and ride your network for free.
It's all about market share, plain and simple.


      Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer -   
 ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group  
   24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc () acsi net

On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:

Eric D. Madison wrote:

Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced accounting
features into their software settlements could start any time.

a) the accounting was there for years, so what

b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B.  Should A pay
   to B or vice versa?

   So far nobody gave any useful answer to that question.

There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to relative
worth of connectivity from one provider to another.   The large ISPs are
generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume of mutual 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]