Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: peering charges?
From: Jun (John) Wu <jun () wolfox gsl net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:00:58 -0500 (EST)

===== Vadim Antonov previously wrote: ====


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


Believe this is not the key problem with big players not be willing to
peer with small one. The key problem is WHERE they are exchanging traffic.
As long as both shares half of the load to haul traffic across the
continent/ocean, that is okay. But if the small provider has only one
local exchange, the big provider ends up hauling traffic both ways,
and the small one gets competetive edge in his local market because he
does not pay any wide area transmission cost. The cost would have been
paid if he bought a pipe from the big provider instead of free peering.
That is just a rough picture.

If the small provider, however small he is, buys a pipe across continent/ocean
and peer with big provider at multiple locations, there is really no
reason not to peer with him except some CPU/router-process concerns.

Jun
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


  By Date           By Thread  

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