nanog mailing list archives
RE: FYI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97
From: Jim Browning <jfbb () atmnet net>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:05:09 -0800
From: Dave Curado[SMTP:davec () ziplink net] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 1997 2:15 AM My intention, by the way, is not to simply pick nits over a posting. I have heard in the past that there is at least one major provider who sells transit through the naps. Regardless of whether that is an OK thing to do or not, I am sincerely interested in knowing if that is true.
There are two different flavors of this: A. Providing transit over the NAP fabric (ATM or FDDI) B. Providing transit via a private interconnect which happens to be at a NAP facility. You should speak to each provider yourself, with an awareness that this approach is avoided because of the fact that getting traffic both through and _away from_ the exchanges is a serious concern of providers carrying a lot of traffic. This problem is exacerbated if transit connections are accepted at the exchange points. There may a time when "Purchased Peering" becomes the chosen approach for what you are seeking... -- Jim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- FYI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97 L. Sean Kennedy (Mar 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: FYI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97 Dave Curado (Mar 17)
- Re: FYI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97 Matthew Petach (Mar 18)
- Re: FYI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97 Robert E. Seastrom (Mar 18)
- Re: FYI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97 Dave Curado (Mar 18)
- RE: FYI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97 Jim Browning (Mar 22)