nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
From: David Schwartz <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:42:03 -0700
On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:15:21 -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
You wouldn't buy the notion of reciprical billing? I think this would most likely be the fairest, but maybe the hardest to implement. It would either have to be done at the end points, or at every interconnect. In this method, if the traffic across an interconnect would truely be a 1 to 1 ratio, then the bills would cancel each other out, where the 1 to 1.6 or so would lean in towards favoring the company taking more traffic onto it's network.
Why favor the company that took more traffic? Why not favor the company that provided more traffic? Your customers pay you both to delivery their packets to others and to deliver packets to them, right? If I go to a web page, presumably the web page owner wants to receive my request and show me his content about as much as I want to see his content, no? DS
Current thread:
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd), (continued)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Chris Parker (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) E.B. Dreger (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) E.B. Dreger (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)