AOL & Cogent
paul at vix.com
Sun Dec 29 21:12:16 UTC 2002
> The perceived "money on the table" frequently doesn't exist and attempts
> to get it may produce the opposite result.
well, yeah, sure, but...
> * Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor.
...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY, thus supporting the market
you want to be in. you can then compete in that market. if everybody who
could peer in N places worldwide could just get peering, then all kinds of
per-bit revenue for "high tier" network owners would turn into per-port
revenue for exchange point operators. where's the market in that? how
could a "high tier" even exist in those conditions?
> 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.
well, that's a technical consideration, and as such won't matter until we've
burned through some of the overcapacity from the dot-bomb era. right now
it's possible to do gaming and voip and other isochronous applications via
a transit provider who can backhaul your traffic 1500 miles (or 6000 miles)
to some centralised peering point and still have reasonable performance. we
will need to 1000X the traffic volume again before this stops working again.
which should take about a year.
More information about the NANOG