nanog mailing list archives
Re: peering charges?
From: "Dave O'Shea" <doshea () mail wiltel net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 02:21:14 -0600
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () pluris com>
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
.. But the huge glut of "I wanna be an ISP too!" guys operating a Cisco 2500 out of their garage was not. A large number of ISP's simply don't know what they're doing; witness the universal broadcasting of RFC1597 addresses.
b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Should A
pay
to B or vice versa?
It's the golden rule - "He who has the gold, makes the rules". Not that the idea isn't without problems.. But seeing peering procedures formalized would make life easier, even if it cost a few bucks. Being a fairly small start up, I know that the odds of UUnet cutting me a check every month are between slim and none. You can tell this list is populated only by Real Engineers. Ten messages and counting on Saturday night. :-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: peering charges?, (continued)
- Re: peering charges? Jeff Young (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? John (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Jon Zeeff (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? John (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Jon Zeeff (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Alex.Bligh (Jan 28)
- Re: peering charges? Jeff Young (Jan 29)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Jonathan Heiliger (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Todd Graham Lewis (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Daryn D. Fisher (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Michael Dillon (Jan 26)