Re: UUNET Press Release on Peering

[smd () clock org (Sean M. Doran)]

"William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson () greendragon com> writes:

> In view of the difference, I would suggest that the web farms have a
> case that UUnet should pay _them_ for the priveledge of accessing their
> content!  Anytime UUnet asks for a fee for peering, just tell them that
> you really consider them unequal, and that they should
> pay YOU!

This would be a really good idea because it would give a
strong push into investing in web caching technologies at
the ISP level.  Once that's been done, and access-level
devices (customer-aggregating NATs and the like) can be
gotten reliably to intercept queries directed towards
anything other than a web caching hierarchy, in an
intelligent engineering effort to keep traffic as local as
possible when it's possible, the whole spurious argument
that this is about web farms will go away.

Moreover, a more general piecemeal settlements scheme
would be much easier to put in place in an environment
where the web farmers or small providers argue back that
they ought to be paid by larger providers with huge
numbers of end users connected through them.

Finally, if you were UUNET and looking at things from a
UUNET perspective, what's the difference between an entity
exchanging traffic with them in one or two places across
an FDDI switch and an entity exchanging traffic with them
in one or two places across a Frame Relay switch?   And
wouldn't you start wondering when small providers will
start paying their own customers for the privilege of
talking with them?

        Sean.




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