peering charges?

Howard C. Berkowitz hcb at
Sun Jan 26 16:19:12 UTC 1997

At 2:04 AM -0500 1/26/97, Eric D. Madison wrote:
>I don't think anyone has actually started charging "settlements" which is
>what your CEO is probably talking about.  It's been a rumor for quite a
>while that settlement based peering will happen.  Very similar to how the
>utilities companies manage "traffic".  You would count bits into your
>network from peer X and he would count bits from your network, whoever has
>the lowest number has to pay the difference.  So, if you are a small
>provider, your going to have to pay the big boys to carry your customers
>traffic.  Welcome to the new Internet, where the bottom line is the
>driving factor. Especially since the margins are so low and no-one has
>made any money yet (will we ever?).

A good reference on financial issues in peering models is, a paper by Geoff Huston.
>Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced accounting
>features into their software settlements could start any time.  It's just
>a matter of time until someone actually announces it..  who will jump
>first?   I have my guess but I don't think I want to announce it publicly.

>On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Dave Curado wrote:
>> Curious thing, the CEO of my company called me the other
>> day and was worried about who we were peering with.
>> It seems someone put a bug in his ear that the larger
>> providers were about to start charging some of the smaller
>> providers for bilateral peering.
>> I haven't heard anything about that at all... so either
>> a) the ceo is mistaken
>> b) I've missed some important annoucement recently
>> either is possible.
>> Has anyone else heard anything about this?

More information about the NANOG mailing list