North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Peering Table Question

  • From: I Am Not An Isp
  • Date: Mon Apr 24 10:05:57 2000


At 05:54 PM 4/21/00 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

>One can also look upon it that the customer of Network A (the web site)
>should pay Network A for the costs involved and the customer of Network B
>(the dialup user) should pay Network B for their costs. A transfer of data
>is never initiated without two parties, one offering the data and the
>other requesting it. You never put data online unless you want people to
>look at it. Yes, I can see that if a network is very large it would not
>want to pay money for a private interchange, but if you are already at a
>shared medium you should at least offer restricted routing (for instance,
>you offer routes for your Washington DC customers to people at MAE-EAST).

Why do you assume most networks even have the ability to offer you "routes for [their] Washington DC customers" at MAE-East? Offering localized routes is not necessarily trivial. It has also been actively discouraged as "dangerous" by some members of this list.

I am not at all saying that this is not possible, or even that it is not a good idea. Just that no network "should" do anything it does not want to do.


Of course, one could argue that networks which make this extra effort may have better traffic flows and happier customers, which may make them more profitable or bigger companies or whatever. Whether that is actually the case is left as an exercise for the reader. :)


>Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]

TTFN,
patrick

--
I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net
ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
"Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
(Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)