North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Sprint peering policy
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: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Miquel van Smoorenburg Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/ l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA@isprime.com>, Phil Rosenthal <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.