|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Worldly Thoughts
> 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. davec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|