nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: Tore Anderson <tore () linpro no>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 18:19:12 +0100
* Patrick W. Gilmore
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow between those two ISPs _anyway_.I believe the events of 2-3 days ago disproves your assertion.
Having partitioned transit-free networks is going to continue to be the exception and not the rule, or at least I hope so...
Therefore, in many cases the only ones to profit from them not reaching a peering agreement (settlement-free or not) is their upstream(s), who is probably delighted to be able to charge them both for the transit traffic.Again, supposed facts not in evidence.
It does happen. I've experienced it myself.
I mentioned in the thread earlier that it is entirely possible Eyeball Network saves money by turning down peering and paying a transit provider to deliver the packets where Eyeball Network wants.
But I never said that this could never be the case either, in fact I think you're right; it is indeed entirely possible that this in many cases is the reason for one network to turn down the other's peering request. If only one of the networks is geographically large or the proposed peering agreement does not have provisions about multiple peering locations (and respecting MED), it's probably even more likely to be the case. However, it is also entirely possible that the networks simply are too stubborn to either accept paid peering, to loosen up on any requirements of balanced ingress/egress ratio, or to commit to cold potato routing, or whatever. I suspect that the likelyhood of this beeing the case is dependant on the size of the networks involved, though. Regards, -- Tore Anderson
Current thread:
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts, (continued)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts David Schwartz (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Florian Weimer (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts michael.dillon (Nov 03)
- "Tier 1" vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Eric Van Tol (Nov 03)
- Re: "Tier 1" vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Marshall Eubanks (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Stephen Sprunk (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Tore Anderson (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Tore Anderson (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Leo Bicknell (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Barrett Lyon (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Seth Mattinen (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts William Herrin (Nov 03)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Rod Beck (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Dave Israel (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)