Karl Denninger karl at
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          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
			     | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

More information about the NANOG mailing list