|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Peering versus Transit
> > Hi Bill, > > > I can see no justification under any circumstances why any provider > > would refuse to peer with another at an established exchange point for > > exchanging their _own_ customers' traffic! > > I can give you three: > > 1/ LargeISP does not want to spend the X hours it takes to > bring up a peering session for SmallISP's routes. The > benefit gained to SmallISP's 5 routes is not great enough. plus 1a/ LargeISP realises adding another peer adds to router load, both in the sense of running more BGP sessions and increasing memory load as if LargeISP is already seeing these routes somehow he has to keep yet another path. 1b/ Large ISP does not want the administrative burden of keeping another peer active when they get little perceived benefit from the peering session (more people to contact if they change router config etc.) Note that for most of Europe (not currently true in Demon's case) the traffic would otherwise go through icp/icm and Sprint gets paid in the end for this. So it is somewhat ironic that Sprints larger competitors would rather pay Sprint than peer with European providers. Peter is thus quite right that it is not sensible (IMHO) to use exactly the same peering criteria for US and international networks. Peter - Re Sprint - this may have something to do with the fact it is not too long since Demon were a Sprint customer. Ditto AGIS. Alex Bligh Xara Networks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|