Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
tore at linpro.no
Mon Nov 3 17:19:12 UTC 2008
* Patrick W. Gilmore
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow
> > between those two ISPs _anyway_.
> I believe the events of 2-3 days ago disproves your assertion.
Having partitioned transit-free networks is going to continue to be the
exception and not the rule, or at least I hope so...
> > Therefore, in many cases the only
> > ones to profit from them not reaching a peering agreement
> > (settlement-free or not) is their upstream(s), who is probably
> > delighted to be able to charge them both for the transit traffic.
> Again, supposed facts not in evidence.
It does happen. I've experienced it myself.
> I mentioned in the thread earlier that it is entirely possible
> Eyeball Network saves money by turning down peering and paying a
> transit provider to deliver the packets where Eyeball Network wants.
But I never said that this could never be the case either, in fact I
think you're right; it is indeed entirely possible that this in many
cases is the reason for one network to turn down the other's peering
request. If only one of the networks is geographically large or the
proposed peering agreement does not have provisions about multiple
peering locations (and respecting MED), it's probably even more likely
to be the case.
However, it is also entirely possible that the networks simply are too
stubborn to either accept paid peering, to loosen up on any requirements
of balanced ingress/egress ratio, or to commit to cold potato routing,
or whatever. I suspect that the likelyhood of this beeing the case is
dependant on the size of the networks involved, though.
More information about the NANOG