nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint peering policy
From: "Paul A Flores" <floresp10 () cox net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500
On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:Mike Leber <mleber () he net> writes:Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other whenconsidered byrevenue, profitability, number of customers, orgeographical coverage.A good proxy for the above is to ask the question: Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by interconnecting with each other? If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X and Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal value by interconnecting with the other, than that party usually balks.This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much value Y gets out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should charge hungrier people more for a Whopper.
Don't you think they would if they could? :) Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for value. Otherwise, esp. now that enough people have gotten their hands caught in the cookie jars, why would they GIVE away 'free' services for nothing in return? Peering with anyone is a pain, but a necessary one. If you don't have something anyone wants, your not going to get peered (for free) with anyone. You have ZERO value to anyone else, therefore, expect to pay for your connections. Does it really have to be more complicated than that? Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_ would buy off on that, would be to have some kind of subsidy paid from tax dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with people who have no other redeeming value. This way, I get paid, Y gets to brag to his peers that he is hooked up with X and my tax bill goes up... Talk about false progress. Isn't fudging the books how we got here in the 1st place? No thanks. -PF
Current thread:
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Sprint peering policy Rizzo Frank (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy alex (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Paul A Flores (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz (Jul 01)
- Game Theory (was: RE: Sprint peering policy) Scott A Crosby (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Daniel Golding (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Daniel Golding (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Clayton Fiske (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)