peering charges?

Nathan Stratton nathan at
Sun Jan 26 15:30:12 UTC 1997

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jonathan Heiliger wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> |} 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. 
> Large ISPs should probably be interested in access to content, without it
> their users could find the Internet a very boring place.

Yes, and the current peering requirements are enough to keep most small
ISPs from growing. I am spending 10s of thousands a month over what I need
to spend just because people want to see full DS3 network. I can
understand people would want me to be at all NAPs, but why should I need
10X the bandwidth I need for my customers?

There are also problems with providers saying that I need to be at every
NAP they are at, but what do I do when say a NAP in the east can't give me
a connection? They first don't want to let me in at all, then they say
that we can't connect until they get a new gigaswitch. I was able to get a
gigaswitch for my NAP in 24 hours, why would it take 6 weeks?

Nathan Stratton                                President, NetRail,Inc.
Phone   (888)NetRail                           NetRail, Inc.
Fax     (703)534-5033                          2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5
WWW                Arlington, VA 22201
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about 
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."           Matthew 6:34

More information about the NANOG mailing list