|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: New peering criteria [ and Enron ]
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 [email protected] wrote: > > Geoff writes: ... > > > > The interactions in the inter-Provider space tend to work out to one of > > three outcomes: > > > > 1 Either A pays B unconditionally (and becomes a customer of B) > > (and, yes, this includes 'paid peering') > > > > 2 A and B do not interconnect directly, and resolve connectivity through > > third party interactions > > > > 3 A and B interconnect and agree not to pay each other - i.e. peering > > I think this elides one of the most important questions: pays for > what? ... > Business relationships can be convoluted ... > >From an engineering standpoint the interactions in Inter-provider > space all boil down to that one question: do these ASes exchange > traffic directly, or is there an AS in the middle? From a business > standpoint, there are as many potential interactions layered on top > that simple question as there are business models drifting in the > trash baskets of the VCs on Sand Hill Road. ... > regards, > Ted Hardie > This brings up a question that I have not been able to answer definitively. Are there relationships out there where the operator of ASx pays the operator of ASy for connectivity to ASz, but with the caveat that the connectivity is through exactly one router in y's network for each peering connection? Say y and z connect in NY, SF and DC. x connects to y in DC and SF. y announces x's routes to z only in DC and SF (not in NY). Furthermore, if x and y lose connectivity in DC, then y does not announce x's routes to z in DC. It seems, for example, that a large provider could lead a coalition that would be able to fill C&W's traffic requirements, even though the lead provider would not qualify without the coalition. Is this done? Steve Schaefer Dashbit - The Leader In Internet Topology www.dashbit.com www.traceloop.com
|