nanog mailing list archives
Re: AGIS/DIGEX
From: matthew () scruz net (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:59:29 -0800
This exact thought has occured to me. Fixed charges to peer at fewer places. You can even come up with reasonable assumptions for fixed charges. (like that people who peer at one coast but not the other are costing you some fraction of one direction of a coast-to-coast DS3, and ought to pay you about that much) Perhaps if/when we end up at additional NAPs we'll implement this policy ourselves. -matthew kaufman matthew () scruz net Original message <Pine.ULT.3.93.961030093058.20904H-100000 () halcyon halcyon com> From: Ed Morin <edm () halcyon com> Date: Oct 30, 9:32 Subject: Re: AGIS/DIGEX
Maybe a peering agreement that has settlements based on the number of NAP's you peer at? Peering at _no_ NAP's means paying full price with a decreasing scale down to nothing if you peer at 5 NAP's (or whatever the current hurdle is set at). Ed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: AGIS/DIGEX, (continued)
- Re: AGIS/DIGEX Chris A. Icide (Oct 29)
- Re: AGIS/DIGEX Mark Borchers (Oct 30)
- Re: AGIS/DIGEX Avi Freedman (Oct 30)
- Peering Policy ( was Re: AGIS/DIGEX ) Pritish Shah (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering Policy ( was Re: AGIS/DIGEX ) Todd Graham Lewis (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering Policy ( was Re: AGIS/DIGEX ) Avi Freedman (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering Policy ( was Re: AGIS/DIGEX ) alex (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering Policy ( was Re: AGIS/DIGEX ) Michael Dillon (Oct 30)
- Re: AGIS/DIGEX Mike Trest (Oct 30)
- Re: AGIS/DIGEX Steve Noble (Oct 30)
- Re: AGIS/DIGEX Matthew Kaufman (Oct 30)