Peering versus Transit
Jeff Young
young at mci.net
Mon Sep 30 21:17:04 UTC 1996
because ds-3's to naps are finite resources and cost money.
why would you assume that any provider wants to burn his ds-3
by taking traffic at a nap when he has better connectivity
to your transit provider? in fact, he may not even peer with
your transit provider at the nap.
why am i not free to arrange traffic flows between my backbone
and others as i see fit? mci and sprint have arranged six ds-3's
between their respective backbones. if your transit provider is
sprint, i don't want your traffic to me by way of a nap. if you
give it to me at a nap, you deserve what you get.
one would think, in my case, that a ds-3 to a nap would cost
me more than a direct ds-3 connection to the XXX backbone.
(assuming that XXX is the transit provider).
Jeff Young
young at mci.net
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Bill Woodcock <woody at zocalo.net>
> Message-Id: <199609300740.AAA01931 at zocalo.net>
> To: avg at quake.net, barney at databus.com, nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Peering versus Transit
> Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 1837
>
> > There are two ways to have packets go...
> > adding bogus static or whatever routes
> > or by pointing default. Both are malicious.
>
> WRT the latter, I completely agree that pointing a default at anyone
> whom you're not buying transit from is theft, and absolutely beyond
> condonement.
>
> WRT the former, I simply cannot fathom, and no one other than Sean has
> yet presented an argument explaining why it's malicious to deliver a
> packet to its addressee's ISP. Why should I, as an ISP, not prefer
> that all other ISPs deliver packets to my customers as quickly,
> efficiently, directly, and inexpensively as possible? Why should I
> prefer a more expensive or less reliable route, or expect any other
> ISP to do so?
>
> I realize that this is about the hundredth time somebody has asked
> exactly that question, but people are just going to keep asking until
> there's a convincing reason, or people stop suggesting that other
> people use less-efficient paths. It is, after all, an obvious
> question.
>
> > Example, please, when somebody conforming to the stated policies
> > was denied peering? (Plase note that the process... may be
> > rather lengthy...
>
> Okay, it's _widely rumored_ that it may be difficult to establish new
> peering sessions with some large ISPs, at the moment. :-) But this
> again distracts from the question at hand, since you assume that
> "stated policies" should institutionalize unequal relationships.
> Assuming that skirts the argument, just as nonsequiturs about default
> routes do.
>
> -Bill
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at applelink.apple.com user at host.domain.com
More information about the NANOG
mailing list