North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Worldly Thoughts

  • From: Dave Curado
  • Date: Fri May 10 21:43:09 1996

> Let me turn the question around a bit.  Suppose N small providers peer
> at M places and together represent p% of the Internet.  If they simply
> appear at one NAP and don't contract for transit, they may reach
> 100%-(%p/(M-1)) of the Internet.  Is that something to encourage?  If
> they must contract for transit and as a result reach all major
> interconnects, they get 100% (possibly minus a small epsilon for other
> reasons).  They then don't need to be at any of the NAPs.  Are some
> providers trying to show up at one NAP only with the aim of not
> contracting for transit through anyone even though they can't really
> reach others like themselves at a different interconnect?

Or, possible some small providers buy a multi-megabit circuit from a
large provider who gives them transit.  The small provider then connects
at a single NAP and picks up bilateral peering sessions with a bunch 
of people there.  The result is offloading traffic from their 
"transit link", which stands a good chance of being priced as a 
"burstable" link. (pay for what you use)  That gives the small 
provider an economic incentive to operate in this manner.  

No comment on whether this is a good idea or bad, but I understand 
the thinking.  


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