nanog mailing list archives
Re: peering charges?
From: jon () branch net (Jon Zeeff)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:25:07 -0500 (EST)
to ours" into "we'll be happy to peer with you but be aware that we only send local routes when we peer at public exchanges, and if you want a full routing exchange it'll take 6 T3's worth of private peering -- can you afford it?"
This sounds like the right approach, although I'd add some flexibility that makes everything in between possible. Ie, if you peer at one NAP, then you get some percentage of the peers routes. If you are at all NAPS, then you get 100%.
I think the network will work better and scale better when this kind of "peering" becomes the norm. If wide area telecom costs are the reason big guys don't like to peer with little guys, then by gum let's see peering and charging all take place exactly where the economics require it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: peering charges?, (continued)
- 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? Eric D. Madison (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 27)
- 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)