Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.

Noel Chiappa jnc at
Mon Sep 25 20:06:58 UTC 1995

    From: Sean Doran <smd at>

    > If, say, ... branched out to Miami, and bought another
    > Alternet ISP T-1 connection out there, they would then be getting free
    > transit between them.

    I don't see that this is a problem.  After all, if they bought two
    AlterNet connections, isn't being able to send traffic across AlterNet
    what they're *paying* for?

Hmm. But what about the follwing situation. Two large carriers, P and Q, are
interconnected at multiple sites, among them X and Y. Let's further suppose
carrier P has two customers, C1 and C2, near X and Y respectively. 

What's to stop carrier P taking trafic from C1, giving it to Q at X, and
getting it back at Y, and thence taking it to C2? That way, P (presumably)
gets paid for carrying the traffic around, but Q does all the long-haul work.

Yes, P has to pay Q for large enough access pipes, but isn't Q's charging
model assuming that all customers have traffic profiles in which data, on
average, travels approximately equal distances (since I assume it costs more
money to ship 1 Mbit/sec 3K miles than it does 10 miles)? So, if a customer of
Q can arrange to have all their data travel a long way, they can come out
ahead of the game, i.e. with lower cost than actual cost.

If so, I'd assume P can pay Q's access fess, and still come out ahead, which
seems to me to be rather like getting something for nothing... Now, maybe I'm
confused about the true costs?


More information about the NANOG mailing list