[19159] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBN/GTEI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tuomas Toivonen)
Mon Aug 31 10:44:13 1998
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:11:28 +0300
From: Tuomas Toivonen <toivotuo@fishpool.com>
To: steve@altrina.exodus.net, Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <19980828105058.A22851@altrina.exodus.net>; from steve@altrina.exodus.net on Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 10:50:58AM -0700
On Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 10:50:58AM -0700, steve@altrina.exodus.net wrote:
> > Uh, huh, this is not quite the real world. I certainly would like to see a
> > corporate marketing dude even considering that. If connectivity to cust-a
> > (surfer) sucks then cust-b will take net-b by the throat and demand
> > something to be done (in essence net-b will pay settlement to net-a or lose
> > cust-b).
>
> Realizing that most large co-located websites are in facilities or
> at network providers who have many OTHER large co-located websites, the
> chances are great that cust-a will notice slow or no connectivity to MANY
> websites. Who do you think he will blame? :
>
> a.) net-a
> b.) net-b
> c.) cust-b
>
> Of course net-a, he pays net-a $$ for connectivity, the customer will
> not take many 'its on their side' answers from net-a, he will demand that net-a
> fix his connectivity or he will leave.
Yes, but when cust-a has bad connectivity to cust-b (and other co-located
sites) I would see net-b receiving pressure from cust-b to improve
connectivity to net-a. When customer is able to make demands to provider
money has exchanged hands and provider has (should with a viable business
model) means to pay settlement.
--
tuomas.toivonen@fishpool.fi fishpool creations ltd
http://www.kasvua.org/~toivotuo/ http://www.fishpool.fi/
