nanog mailing list archives
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
From: vijay gill <vgill () vijaygill com>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:16:58 -0500
Pete Templin wrote:
John Curran wrote:Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the receiving network even if its handed off at the closest interconnect to the final destination(s).And there's still revenue, as the traffic is going to customers (we all filter our prefixes carefully, right?). What's the problem with cold-potato again, or should we all just try to double-dip?pt
ah yes, double dipping. On-net traffic should be charged a lot less, because after all, it is double dipping.
/vijay
Current thread:
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now John Curran (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now John Curran (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Pete Templin (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now vijay gill (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Pete Templin (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Pete Templin (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Jeff Aitken (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Pete Templin (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Deepak Jain (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Jeff Aitken (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now John Curran (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Jon Lewis (Nov 01)