North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Peering versus Transit
because ds-3's to naps are finite resources and cost money. why would you assume that any provider wants to burn his ds-3 by taking traffic at a nap when he has better connectivity to your transit provider? in fact, he may not even peer with your transit provider at the nap. why am i not free to arrange traffic flows between my backbone and others as i see fit? mci and sprint have arranged six ds-3's between their respective backbones. if your transit provider is sprint, i don't want your traffic to me by way of a nap. if you give it to me at a nap, you deserve what you get. one would think, in my case, that a ds-3 to a nap would cost me more than a direct ds-3 connection to the XXX backbone. (assuming that XXX is the transit provider). Jeff Young [email protected] > Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:40:49 -0700 (PDT) > From: Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: Re: Peering versus Transit > Sender: [email protected] > Content-Type: text > Content-Length: 1837 > > > There are two ways to have packets go... > > adding bogus static or whatever routes > > or by pointing default. Both are malicious. > > WRT the latter, I completely agree that pointing a default at anyone > whom you're not buying transit from is theft, and absolutely beyond > condonement. > > WRT the former, I simply cannot fathom, and no one other than Sean has > yet presented an argument explaining why it's malicious to deliver a > packet to its addressee's ISP. Why should I, as an ISP, not prefer > that all other ISPs deliver packets to my customers as quickly, > efficiently, directly, and inexpensively as possible? Why should I > prefer a more expensive or less reliable route, or expect any other > ISP to do so? > > I realize that this is about the hundredth time somebody has asked > exactly that question, but people are just going to keep asking until > there's a convincing reason, or people stop suggesting that other > people use less-efficient paths. It is, after all, an obvious > question. > > > Example, please, when somebody conforming to the stated policies > > was denied peering? (Plase note that the process... may be > > rather lengthy... > > Okay, it's _widely rumored_ that it may be difficult to establish new > peering sessions with some large ISPs, at the moment. :-) But this > again distracts from the question at hand, since you assume that > "stated policies" should institutionalize unequal relationships. > Assuming that skirts the argument, just as nonsequiturs about default > routes do. > > -Bill > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > bill woodcock [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|