karl at mcs.net
Fri Aug 21 22:53:10 UTC 1998
On Fri, Aug 21, 1998 at 03:36:08PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > In fact, what you're advocating is billing the sender for *solicited data*
> > from the recipient's point of view!
> Not at all. I am advocating paying for transit.
On the contrary.
If I buy a DS1 for transit from your network, I'm expecting the person I pay
to provide transit - ALL OF THE TRANSIT.
That's what I'm buying!
Now what you're saying is that "oh, no, that's not really what you bought"!
I'm sure the thousands of DS-1 connected CUSTOMERS (that is, transit
purchasers) will find this a very, very interesting interpretation.
> Regardless of whether my proposed solution is the correct one or just a
> bad idea produced by indigestion, you cannot deny that the asymmetry
> between networks is increasing as network providers specialize the
> services they offer. The old-fashioned rough-cut peering is becoming more
> and more unsuitable as the only peering option. We need new ways to do
> this. Somebody has to take the first step. Somebody has to be a pioneer.
No, its actually becoming MORE suitable. Instead of burning the entire
circuit in both directions, you're only burning half of it now (one
> The details can always be hashed out later.
You're simply wrong, once again.
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
| NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
More information about the NANOG