Sprint peering policy

Phil Rosenthal pr at isprime.com
Mon Jul 1 17:22:25 UTC 2002


But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food,
they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it,
no?

--Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of
David Schwartz
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:45 PM
To: vgill at vijaygill.com; Mike Leber
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy





On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
>
>Mike Leber <mleber at he.net> writes:
>
>>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by

>>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage.
>
>A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
>
>Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by 
>interconnecting with each other?
>
>If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X and 
>Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal value by 
>interconnecting with the other, than that party usually balks.

	This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much
value Y gets 
out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should
charge 
hungrier people more for a Whopper.

	DS






More information about the NANOG mailing list