|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Peering versus Transit
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> > I think Peter G's original point was that they are spending $8m/yr
> > (L5m/yr) connecting to just MAE-East. I'm not sure I agree with Peter
> > that constructing a network beyond that in the US is entirely redundant,
> > but it is surely illogical to class an $8m network in the same category
> > as just a $5700 network.
>
> Yes, but not MAE-East. Contructing a network would be nice, but to what
> puprose ? I take three DS3s to MAE-{East,West) and the Sprint NAP...
> three more BGP sessions per distributed peer, three more routers, three
> more engineers.
Here are some observations I'd throw out there..
Any tier 1 provider can look at someone who shows up at just a single EP and
say, why should I have to haul all traffic through my backbone so I can
exchange traffic at one coast?
In case of a European provider who drags a line across the pond, the earlier
argument of inequal distribution of cost is not strictly an issue.
However, given today's litigious climate (at least in US), how can the
said tier 1 provider peer with a European provider who shows up at a single EP
and cover their backside, legally?
Furthermore, for those providers that looks at the globe as their market (MCI
& BT with Concert, Sprint with Global One, UUNET with their international
extensions etc) how do they make a rational decision as to who they peer with
and who are their potential customers?
-dorian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|