|
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, Bill Woodcock wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[email protected]> writes: > > because you're using THEIR resources to do so, without > > explicit permission from them. > That's a repetition of the same position that's been stated over and > over, without justification. If A sends to B directly in the absence > of an advertised route, A is "stealing" resources from B. If B sends > to A indirectly through A's transit provider, then B is "stealing" > resources from A. What makes the former case worse in your mind than > the latter, when it results in higher reliability, lower cost, and a > sounder architecture? In the latter case, there are established agreements for exchange of traffic. In the former case, there are not. B may not even KNOW that A is doing this. The distinction seems rather clear. Besides this, there are engineering reasons why this is a bad idea, many of which have been explained to you already. Also note that dumping your traffic to an NSP at an IXP may not BE a route of "higher reliability" or "sounder architecture". Randomly injecting your traffic into some point on B's network does not guarantee, or even imply, optimal traffic patterns. I also fail to see how this is a lower-cost solution, as, without a peering agreement with B, you must still purchase transit to them from another source. > Reiterating the same position over and over without any basis or logical > foundation does nothing to convince anyone that your position is of > any merit. I've seen several messages with excellent engineering, economic and philosopical arguments against this practice. -- // Matt Zimmerman Chief of System Management NetRail, Inc. // [email protected] [email protected] // (703) 524-4800 [voice] (703) 516-0500 [data] (703) 534-5033 [fax] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|