RE: peering charges?

["Danny Stroud" <dannystroud () msn com>]

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

_______________________________________________________
      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 
traffic.
> --vadim

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