dannystroud at msn.com
Mon Jan 27 17:10:15 UTC 1997
I am encouraged (not that any of you care what I feel) that there is so much
dialogue about the market dynamics surrounding this subject. It seems to be a
new focus (versus a more esoteric, technical focus) that I believe will drive
the industry to making itself a better place for customers. We, the operators,
have a challenge to make the 'net an economically viable industry. Right now
it is not, but we seem to be headed in the right direction. des
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu on behalf of Eric D. Madison
Sent: Monday, January 27, 1997 8:09 AM
To: Vadim Antonov
Cc: davec at ziplink.net; nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: peering charges?
Your right on that last comment about market share.. say your MCI and you
have a smaller provider that wants to peer with you, you had rather have
them buy a pipe than let the peer and ride your network for free.
It's all about market share, plain and simple.
Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer -
ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group
24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc at acsi.net
On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> 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.
> 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
More information about the NANOG