|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: peering charges?
I am encouraged (not that any of you care what I feel) that there is so much dialogue about the market dynamics surrounding this subject. It seems to be a new focus (versus a more esoteric, technical focus) that I believe will drive the industry to making itself a better place for customers. We, the operators, have a challenge to make the 'net an economically viable industry. Right now it is not, but we seem to be headed in the right direction. des ---------- From: [email protected] on behalf of Eric D. Madison Sent: Monday, January 27, 1997 8:09 AM To: Vadim Antonov Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: peering charges? Your right on that last comment about market share.. say your MCI and you have a smaller provider that wants to peer with you, you had rather have them buy a pipe than let the peer and ride your network for free. It's all about market share, plain and simple. Eric _______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: [email protected] On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote: > Eric D. Madison wrote: > > >Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced accounting > >features into their software settlements could start any time. > > a) the accounting was there for years, so what > > b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Should A pay > to B or vice versa? > > So far nobody gave any useful answer to that question. > > There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to relative > worth of connectivity from one provider to another. The large ISPs are > generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume of mutual traffic. > > --vadim > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|