|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: peering charges?
Paul, Yes, that is exactly what we do..;-) Any other providers want to give me a free DS3?????? David Whipple. >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul A Vixie [SMTP:[email protected]] >Sent: Sunday, January 26, 1997 1:25 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: peering charges? > >> Well, my guess would be that if you don't have a DS3 backbone, why >> would the big guys want to peer with you anyway? If you don't need >> that much bandwidth (or don't have it) odds are you don't have enough >> customers for the big guys to want to peer with you. > >Chances are that the big guys all have POPs in the little guys' areas, >and that there is or could be an exchange point in each such area, and >that the big guys' customers will have better access to the little guys' >customers if peering is done. > >The reasons we don't do this aren't related to network size. There are >three reasons: (a) big guy thinks their excrement is odorless and that >everybody else ought to have to pay to get access to their perfect network >and their spamless customers; (b) big guy wants little guy to pay fair share >of WAN costs; and (c) it's a tiny bit harder to "peer" if you're only >sending local area routes rather than sending all of them everywhere. > >I agree with with the information provider model. Ultimately, entities >with attractive content will be selling access to wide area providers, who >will sell it to local area providers, who will sell it to customers. This >is the old "gatekeeper.dec.com" model extended to fee-based content. I >heard that Microsoft was letting providers terminate T3's with them since >good access to Microsoft's content is a selling point for an access >provider's customer base. Why should such a content provider have to buy >peering, or pay wide area telecom costs? On the other hand, right now >Microsoft is still effectively buying transit, and at some point they will >just charge for access to their content and let other people charge each >other for indirect access to that content. > >And Microsoft is just the first/largest. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|