peering charges?

Avi Freedman freedman at
Sun Jan 26 08:03:07 UTC 1997

> Eric D. Madison wrote:
> >Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced accounting
> >features into their software settlements could start any time.
> a) the accounting was there for years, so what
> b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B.  Should A pay
>    to B or vice versa?
>    So far nobody gave any useful answer to that question.

Exactly; if someone says "pay me for traffic I deliver to you", you say 
"your web or corporate customer is paying you to deliver that traffic to

If someone says "pay me for traffic you send to me", you say "your 
customer requested that data from my or my customer's web server".

None of this will get you peering or not, but it does show that it's
difficult to come up with a useful answer to that question...

> There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to relative
> worth of connectivity from one provider to another.   The large ISPs are
> generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume of mutual traffic.
> --vadim


More information about the NANOG mailing list