From: vijay gill (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 11:16:58 EST
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
|
|
|