|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: MAE NY?
Let's try to ignore my poor wording (like NE regional traffic) because we both know what I'm talking about. I guess the way people respond to this sort of thing depends on their motivations. Since I'm in the business of providing a service, I want to provide the best service possible to my customers. So, let's look at my customer who wants to send a packet to your network. Right now, it leaves my network, travels over one of the super-mega-conglomo backbone providers which I'm connected to, and then gets to your network. Now, if in the interest of bettering that, I throw a couple of T3s in to the NAPs I can get to, and directly peer with your network in those places, we all of a sudden have greatly increased performance in both directions. Thus, I have happier customers. Now since on my network, inbound and outbound traffic are almost the same, your customers should also enjoy the same increased performance as mine. Also, by virtue of the fact that my only "upstream" connections are in Boston, if you are peered with any of those other providers, they will dump the packets onto your network as close to Boston as they can. If I'm good enough to bring them half way across the country, I'm doing you a favor while helping myself. Brian On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Randy Bush wrote: > > I should certainly agree. But, having been through this before, I know I > > have to deal with silly policies which don't apply to all situations. My > > traffic is entirely NE regional right now. > > i very much doubt this. your traffic is world-wide. the people who pay you > just happen to be only in the US NE. and this mis-conception is the basis > of your problem. > > > I think I'm being a hell of a sport by delivering it down to say MAE East > > and AADS or something like that. When I have that established, and > > someone then comes back and tells me that they won't peer just because I > > don't have a West coast presence, I think that's rediculous. > > the counter-argument would go something like this > > so, you think it is fine for me to pay to carry your traffic across > the country. > > then parallel logic says that we all should also think it fine if you > pay to carry our traffic across the country. please install a cross- > country link and peer on both coasts. > > this is called hot potato, and is the general practice. check the meaning > of 'peer' in the dictionary. > > i suspect that the airlines do not consider you 'a heck of a sport' because > you drove to the airport, and are 'ridiculous' enough to want to charge you > for a plane ticket to san francisco. > > randy > --- Brian Horvitz Shore.Net Network Engineering
|