Sprint peering policy (fwd)

Chris Parker cparker at starnetusa.net
Mon Jul 1 18:45:07 UTC 2002


At 02:15 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:

>>From: Paul A Flores <floresp10 at cox.net>
>>
>>Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory
>>issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of
>>mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_
>>would buy off on that, would be to have some kind of subsidy paid from tax
>>dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with people who
>>have no other redeeming value.
>
>You wouldn't buy the notion of reciprical billing?  I think this would 
>most likely be the fairest, but maybe the hardest to implement.  It would 
>either have to be done at the end points, or at every interconnect.  In 
>this method, if the traffic across an interconnect would truely be a 1 to 
>1 ratio, then the bills would cancel each other out, where the 1 to 1.6 or 
>so would lean in towards favoring the company taking more traffic onto 
>it's network.
>
>It's just a thought, and I am not sure how it would work world-wide.

The RBOCs thought the same when they pushed for recip-comp.  The CLECs
in general then targeted ISP traffic and recip-comp became a drain to
the RBOC coffers instead of the boon.

Look at the current recip-comp scenario as an exchange of bits/sec instead
of minutes.  Do you really think the model will fare any better in the
IP world?  In a peering relationship, each derives benefit.  Trying to
pin a monetary value on that benefit will never reach a wide enough
agreement to handle a recip-comp model.  I think the current 'bill and 
keep' model ( which the telco interconnect agreements seem to be trending 
toward )
works best for Internet traffic.

To put this another way, imagine two networks.  One is a large
content provider, they target webhosting customers.  One is a large
access provider, they target end-users.  I think that being able to reach
a large number of end-users is a benefit to the first network.  I also
think that being able to reach a large amount of content is a benefit to
the second network.  If they peer, their traffic ratio will be
1:1 yet both networks gain significant ( imho ) benefit.  Bill and keep
seems the only sensible way to me.

-Chris
--
    \\\|||///  \          StarNet Inc.      \         Chris Parker
    \ ~   ~ /   \       WX *is* Wireless!    \   Director, Engineering
    | @   @ |    \   http://www.starnetwx.net \      (847) 963-0116
oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------
                   \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net





More information about the NANOG mailing list