Direct peering vs. transit peering?
jdustin at ziplink.net
Tue Jul 13 15:54:24 UTC 1999
On the west coast we currently have a both a transit connection
via SAVVIS and multiple peering relationships at the PACBELL
It has been suggested that the PACBELL NAP connection may
be superfluous since most of the people with whom we peer can
be reached at the cost of one extra hop via SAVVIS.
Recently on NANOG there has been discussion of ISPs expanding
their peering relationships as a hedge against the possibility of
Tier 1 providers eliminating non-profitable peering relationships and
adversely impacting routing to sections of the Internet. Whether this
enhanced peering strategy applies to us is debatable.
I personally believe that we should maintain existing and foster new
peering relationships. We purchase transit from multiple providers,
but I think the direct peerings have both a marketing and strategic
I would be interested in hearing arguments supporting both sides
of this question.
Should we continue to peer, or should we effectively sub-contract
our peering relationships to our transit providers?
Our business is primarily a dial access business. We don't host
a significant number of web sites. As we deploy DSL I expect that
(I leave on vacation in 5 minutes. I won't be able to respond to
discussion, suggestions, flames, etc. until next Monday. Have
a quiet week. - Dustin)
More information about the NANOG