peering charges?

David Whipple dwhipple at
Mon Jan 27 18:39:06 UTC 1997


Yes, that is exactly what we do..;-)

Any other providers want to give me a free DS3??????

David Whipple.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Paul A Vixie [SMTP:paul at]
>Sent:	Sunday, January 26, 1997 1:25 PM
>To:	nanog at
>Subject:	Re: peering charges? 
>> Well, my guess would be that if you don't have a DS3 backbone, why
>> would the big guys want to peer with you anyway?  If you don't need
>> that much bandwidth (or don't have it) odds are you don't have enough
>> customers for the big guys to want to peer with you.  
>Chances are that the big guys all have POPs in the little guys' areas,
>and that there is or could be an exchange point in each such area, and
>that the big guys' customers will have better access to the little guys'
>customers if peering is done.
>The reasons we don't do this aren't related to network size.  There are
>three reasons: (a) big guy thinks their excrement is odorless and that
>everybody else ought to have to pay to get access to their perfect network
>and their spamless customers; (b) big guy wants little guy to pay fair share
>of WAN costs; and (c) it's a tiny bit harder to "peer" if you're only
>sending local area routes rather than sending all of them everywhere.
>I agree with with the information provider model.  Ultimately, entities
>with attractive content will be selling access to wide area providers, who
>will sell it to local area providers, who will sell it to customers.  This
>is the old "" model extended to fee-based content.  I
>heard that Microsoft was letting providers terminate T3's with them since
>good access to Microsoft's content is a selling point for an access
>provider's customer base.  Why should such a content provider have to buy
>peering, or pay wide area telecom costs?  On the other hand, right now
>Microsoft is still effectively buying transit, and at some point they will
>just charge for access to their content and let other people charge each
>other for indirect access to that content.
>And Microsoft is just the first/largest.

More information about the NANOG mailing list