Peering versus Transit

Mon Sep 30 02:37:56 UTC 1996

  Hola,

  I'm not Randy, but I did state the previous definition.

    >   A = Little ISP 
    >   B = Sprint or MCI 
    >   C = Other transit provider

>     In this case, the resource is transit purchased by A from C, for the
>     use of A's customers.  In this case, B is "stealing" A's transit
>     resource for the use of B's customers, without compensating A.  

  I don't agree.  B is utilizing A's transit resource in the manner
  A intended.

> C is a
>     hapless bystander who now has to carry a lot of unneccessary traffic
>     which could be flowing directly between A and B.

  Again, I don't agree.

  C is compensated by A to provide flow from B<->C<->A.

  C is not a hapless bystander, C is a provider to A, who provides A
  with a path out to the world, and provides the world (of which B
  is a subset) a path back to A.  C is rewarded for their compliance
  through an agreement with A.

>     Please explain to me how this creates a better, faster, cheaper, more
>     reliable Internet.

  It creates a better internet as A is encouraed to purchase QOS X
  from C in order to allow A's customers both nice access and a nice
  presence on the Internet.

  C is encouraged to grow through economy of scale by providing
  transit for various entities, and, if they're really clever, will
  hit A and B coming and going :-)

  A wants to have nice connectivity to the world/B, so it is
  (assumedly) in their (A's) best interest to pay for such.

  The interesting thing in all of these discussions is to consider
  if A wants to talk to B more than B wants to talk to A.  If C is
  not at either endpoint, then C must recover cost of transit from
  one or both.  In a socialist world, some rule of law would
  establish an "equal" method of paying for such.  In a capitalist
  world, we get to have discussions like these :)

  At least, that's how I see it.

  -alan