Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: peering charges?
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:33:30 -0800

This sounds like the right approach, although I'd add some flexibility that
makes everything in between possible.  Ie, if you peer at one NAP, then you
get some percentage of the peers routes.  If you are at all NAPS, then you
get 100%.

I think this is going to be very bilateral and that the details will vary
all over the place.  And there are some problems with the model, in that
CIDR blocks are not internally local to a single area.  In order for someone
who holds a /13 to send just the routes local to the NAP you're peering at,
they have to send you bits and pieces of their /13.  This is "hard."  I'm not
offering this world model without caveats -- doing the right thing is going
to take a lot of effort.  But I think it's the right direction *anyway*.  If
I want to send my wife mail and she works at a company 10 miles away, it is
*not* going to sit well with me that she can't get it due to a private peering
or even public peering point that's dropping packets 2,500 miles from us.
(We live with that situation today, and none of us likes it.)  I also don't
think it is "wise" (there's that word again) to eat wide area line costs with
traffic that could stay local.  I could go on and on about this, but I see
that I already have.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


  By Date           By Thread  

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