AOL & Cogent

Mike Leber mleber at
Sun Dec 29 20:18:35 UTC 2002

On 29 Dec 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ... trying to even out a perceived inequity ...
> peering is a business decision.  if it's possible to force another network
> into the role of "customer", then that's seen by many as good business since
> revenue increases.  "paid peering" or even "settlements" are not about
> inequity, perceived or otherwise; rather, it's about not leaving money on
> the table.

The perceived "money on the table" frequently doesn't exist and attempts
to get it may produce the opposite result.


A) The former peer may shift the traffic to your transit provider.

B) The former peer may shift the traffic to their transit provider.

In which case the following apply:

* Who they shift the traffic to is now in control of the peering
relationship instead of you (they get to negotiate with the former peer
regarding where and how big of pipes to use for peering).

* Who they shift the traffic to is now a more important part of your
strategic business plan (they have more clout with you when negotiating
and you depend on them more in a risk management sense).

* Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor.

If you assume the above three cases are costs and you add that to the cost
of the decreased efficiency of traffic to the target network you can
compare it to the probability that you can sell service to the former
peer.  Depending on the relationship, you can guess the likelyhood.


+----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+
| Mike Leber           Direct Internet Connections   Voice 510 580 4100 |
| Hurricane Electric     Web Hosting  Colocation       Fax 510 580 4151 |
| mleber at                              |

More information about the NANOG mailing list