North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Mon Nov 03 10:49:11 2008

On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:

Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow
between those two ISPs _anyway_.

I believe the events of 2-3 days ago disproves your assertion.

Therefore, in many cases the only
ones to profit from them not reaching a peering agreement
(settlement-free or not) is their upstream(s), who is probably
delighted to be able to charge them both for the transit traffic.

Again, supposed facts not in evidence.

I mentioned in the thread earlier that it is entirely possible Eyeball Network saves money by turning down peering and paying a transit provider to deliver the packets where Eyeball Network wants. Fiber, routers, IX ports, engineers, etc. are all expensive. Transit these days is not.

Doesn't mean Eyeball Network actually does save money. Just means you don't know either way.