|
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 18:47:38 +0100 "Alex.Bligh" <[email protected]> alleged: > 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.) > Gee, If people had thought like this 4 or 5 years ago, I wonder if we'd have an Internet. > 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. This isn't true for most UK ISP's Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C [email protected] NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/";>computer!</A> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|