[28195] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Table Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Wed Apr 19 18:46:28 2000
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:34:33 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: Mark Kent <mark@noc.mainstreet.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <200004192224.PAA14062@noc.mainstreet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.05.10004191833140.1100-100000@BOOM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Mark Kent wrote:
> >> Errr, isn't 'settlement based peering' synonomous with 'usage-based
> >> transit' ?
>
> transit implies that the "peer" will show your routes outside their
> network, hence allowing traffic from some other network to "transit"
> their network on the way to your network. Whereas 'settlement based peering'
> is just charging for access to your/their network only.
Does it?
I don't agree. We often sell transit to customers, to which we only send
routes of peers, and a discount.
> Of course, the fact that one can make 'usage-based transit' act like
> 'settlement based peering' both technically and financially with the
> use of bgp communities could blur the distinction.
Actually, now that I think about it, I was wrong; usage based transit
implies that the more you push/pull, the more you pay; settlement based
peering could imply that, or that you pay for the delta between the two.
