Peering versus Transit

Mon Sep 30 08:48:55 UTC 1996

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:47:38 +0100 
 "Alex.Bligh" <amb at xara.net> alleged:

> 1a/	LargeISP realises adding another peer adds to router load,
> 	both in the sense of running more BGP sessions and increasing
> 	memory load as if LargeISP is already seeing these routes
> 	somehow he has to keep yet another path.
> 
> 1b/	Large ISP does not want the administrative burden of keeping
> 	another peer active when they get little perceived benefit
> 	from the peering session (more people to contact if they
> 	change router config etc.)
> 

Gee, If people had thought like this 4 or 5 years ago, I wonder if
we'd have an Internet.

> Note that for most of Europe (not currently true in Demon's case)
> the traffic would otherwise go through icp/icm and Sprint gets
> paid in the end for this. So it is somewhat ironic that Sprints
> larger competitors would rather pay Sprint than peer with
> European providers.

This isn't true for most UK ISP's

Regards,
Neil.
--  
Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking.          E A S Y N E T  G R O U P  P L C 
neil at EASYNET.NET        NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) 
  Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>