Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
John R. Levine
johnl at iecc.com
Mon Aug 24 16:48:50 UTC 1998
> This message is simply noting that settling for peering traffic
> is quite viable, despite assertions to the contrary regarding
> traffic generation.
But you're making the critical assumption that the peer is more eager
to get the traffic delivered than your customers are to receive it.
If we were talking about paying to send spam, you'd be entirely right.
But we're really talking about paying to deliver web content, and the
jury's still out about that.
It may turn out to be the case that providers with a lot of retail
customers have to accept expensive web-hosting peers as a cost of
retaining the dialup customers. Or it may turn out that providers
with a lot of web hosting customers may have to pay for peering to get
the connectivity that their customers' advertisers demand.
But the days of peering purely based on traffic volume were over
before they began, the day an international IP link landed in the US
paid entirely by the foreign ISP. That was quite a while ago.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl at iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
More information about the NANOG