Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: Patrick W. Gilmore (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 10:49:06 EST

  • Next message: Leo Bicknell: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    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.

    > 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.

    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. Fiber,
    routers, IX ports, engineers, etc. are all expensive. Transit these
    days is not.

    Doesn't mean Eyeball Network actually does save money. Just means you
    don't know either way.

    -- 
    TTFN,
    patrick
    

  • Next message: Leo Bicknell: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD