|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Sprint peering policy
In your example, it could work, but they would probably still prefer you paid 'someone' for it, even if it isn't them. (The mere fact that you are paying keeps you unable to compete directly with them) --Phil -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Miquel van Smoorenburg Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5 DgN/[email protected]>, Phil Rosenthal <[email protected]> wrote: >Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer, >they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would >likely not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They >gain absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty. >Wcom's costs only increase since they need "more ports". Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway Mike.
|