|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BBN/GTEI
> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > > In fact, what you're advocating is billing the sender for *solicited data* > > > > from the recipient's point of view! > > > > > > Not at all. I am advocating paying for transit. > > > > On the contrary. > > > > If I buy a DS1 for transit from your network, I'm expecting the person I pay > > to provide transit - ALL OF THE TRANSIT. > > Of course, and I agree with you 100%. But I was not talking about a > transit customer. I was talking about a peer whose traffic interchange is > asymmetric and who therefore uses some regional transit in the other guy's > network. I'm saying that instead of slamming the door in his face and > telling him to buy transit, we need to have a scalable peering option that > is a blend. > Ah, but you were talking about traffic from said content provider _TO_ a transit customer, no? The point here is that when I buy a T1 from provider A, I expect him to get my traffic to/from the ENTIRE internet, not the Internet, except those providers that choose not to purchase transit and are not symmetrical in their traffic flows. > Maybe I am headed in the wrong direction with this but I do believe we > need a better solution for peering with asymmetric peers that reduces the > barriers to entry to $$$. Right now there are barriers to entry that > probably will not pass the scrutiny of the DOJ. > That may be. However, the $$$ methods you are talking about are likely to bill the wrong end of the connection. You have repeatedly proposed a solution which allows the customers of transit provider A who purchase transit from transit provider A to write a blank check for provider B to provider A to cover the costs of said transit customer receiving content they request off of servers hosted by provider B. Owen
|