|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Peering versus Transit
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Nathan Stratton wrote: > [...] > So their solution is to send say all MCI > traffic to MCI and all Sprint traffic to Sprit. > [...] > The main problem with is is that A) It is not ethical B) the provider > you are doing this to will figure it out someday and see you in court C) > it is not nice. :-) It certainly makes sense to send MCI traffic to somewhere other than MCI...not. You mean that if I have data to go to Sprint, typically a Sprint customer who has requested said data, that I'm not supposed to route it to Sprint unless *I* have some agreement with Sprint?!? Doesn't Sprint's customer have an agreement with Sprint? As I see it, their customer has selected Sprint as a provider because they like Sprint's network, among other reasons. They want their packets to ride around on Sprint's network. I would have a problem with my provider if I found out that they took someone to court for sending packets destined for me to them...that's *exactly* what I want done. It makes things more reliable for myself and my customers. I didn't pick my provider so that packets destined for me could ride around on SomeOtherNetwork for GodKnowsHowManyHops just because someone couldn't ante up a ton of DS3's. I want data destined for me to come via the fastest, most reliable path possible, and in my opinion, that is by hitting my provider as soon as possible on its way here. I hope that I've misunderstood the messages here, I really do. I'd rather look like the fool this message will make me look like than to know that it's not "ethical" to send data the best way one knows how. It doesn't sound like an excercise in ethics to me, it sounds more like greed at the core. If this is an example of what's going on, maybe we DO need government regulation. Ack. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|