a question about the economics of peering

E.B. Dreger eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net
Fri Nov 30 19:05:49 UTC 2001

> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:52:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> From: Alex Rubenstein <alex at nac.net>

> Essentially, he said that paying more for peering that for
> transit is typical, and to be expected, and most people accept
> this.

And paying more for dialup than OC3s is typical, and most people
accept this.

Does this salesdroid even know WTH peering and transit provide?
Sorry, I just don't seeing anyone with a modicum of sense paying
more for a few thousand routes (with little or no redundancy,
depending on peering arrangements) than a full table with a fair
amount of redundancy.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, it sounds like he's fresh out of
cableco school.  I once contacted a couple of cable companies re
peering... and they wanted to charge more than transit.  They
considered it "priority service" and thought there'd be no
benefit to them.  Ungh?

I mentioned this on a mailing list (isp-whatever? inet-access?
NANOG?) a while back, and someone else responded that s/he'd had
a similar experience.


Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.  Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.

More information about the NANOG mailing list