|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: a question about the economics of peering
[email protected] wrote (on Nov 30): > I thought the whole idea of "transit" was that you got connectivity to > networks that you can't peer with. Obviously. the packets can't tell if > money changes hands or not. Well, it's hardly "the point" of it. Transit is the purchase of all the prefixes a network sees and the service of having your prefixes advertised to all their peers. This much egg-sucking everyone knows. Whether peering is the mechanism by which you - Reduce transit costs/requirements - Increase network performance - Increase control of your network (exit point for traffic, choice beterrn use of peering/transit, etc) - Increase the "value" of your sales proposition (ergo, by implication, the fact you have all of the above) - boast to your mates down the pub how big your network is is down to your personal/company view. To me, connecting (directly) to those networks which operate within your market (eg, the UK, the EU, etc) is essential to be considered a viable player in said market. To connect (directly) to those outside involves other factors, mostly to do with either cost or marketability - if it's outside the place where your customers are, the relative "feeling" of where the peers are is often overshadowed by the cost/distance/whatever of getting traffic to/from that place anyhow. Within my markets, I'd pay (something) to peer with people. Outside, I need to show I'm saving cash by doing so. Chris.
|