Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now

From: John Curran (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 10:04:01 EST

  • Next message: Pete Templin: "Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now"

    At 9:40 AM -0500 11/1/05, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
    >
    >I think everyone agrees that unbalanced ratios can create a situation where one side pays more than the other. However, assuming something can be used to keep the costs equal (e.g. cold-potato?),

    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).

    > I do not see how one network can tell another: "You can't send me what my customers are requesting of you."

    Depeering seems to say exactly that, no?

    >If your business model is to provide flat-rate access, it is not _my_ responsibility to ensure your customers do not use more access than your flat-rate can compensate you to deliver.

    Agreed... I'm not defending the business model, only pointing out that some folks may find it easier to bill their "peers" than customers.

    /John


  • Next message: Pete Templin: "Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD