From: Deepak Jain (no email)
Date: Mon Jul 01 2002 - 19:30:10 EDT
WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to
deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers
of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions disappear. A large ISPs
fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP.
Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a
significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large network to
waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 2mb/s of bandwidth
nowadays (for medium sized networks and above). A few megabits a second is
nothing.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]On Behalf Of
Miquel van Smoorenburg
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
In article
<cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/
l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+>,
Phil Rosenthal <> wrote:
>Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
>they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely
>not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain
>absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's
>costs only increase since they need "more ports".
Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if
- connection cost is very low (shared ethernet)
- they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location
- they only announce regional routes to Joe
- they use hot potato routing everywhere
in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably
all that Joe is after anyway
Mike.
|
|
|