North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
On Nov 1, 2005, at 7:53 AM, John Curran wrote:
Taking L3 & Cogent completely out of this discussion, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.At 12:27 PM +0000 11/1/05, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:The traffic from Cogent creates additional infrastructure requirements on L3.Hi John,Even with cold-potato routing, there is an expense in handling increasednot true for cogent tho, we know that virtually all their traffic is usage based
I think everyone agrees that unbalanced ratios can create a situation where one side pays more than the other. However, assuming something can be used to keep the costs equal (e.g. cold-potato?), I do not see how one network can tell another: "You can't send me what my customers are requesting of you."
If your business model is to provide flat-rate access, it is not _my_ responsibility to ensure your customers do not use more access than your flat-rate can compensate you to deliver.