nanog mailing list archives
Re: peering charges?
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () pluris com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 23:54:18 -0800
Eric D. Madison wrote:
Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced accounting features into their software settlements could start any time.
a) the accounting was there for years, so what b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Should A pay to B or vice versa? So far nobody gave any useful answer to that question. There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to relative worth of connectivity from one provider to another. The large ISPs are generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume of mutual traffic. --vadim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- peering charges? Dave Curado (Jan 25)
- Re: peering charges? Mike Leber (Jan 25)
- Re: peering charges? Eric D. Madison (Jan 25)
- Re: peering charges? Howard C. Berkowitz (Jan 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 25)
- Re: peering charges? Avi Freedman (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Jonathan Heiliger (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Nathan Stratton (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Avi Freedman (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Alec H. Peterson (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Pushpendra Mohta (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Nathan Stratton (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 27)