[2875] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Worldly Thoughts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik Sherk)
Fri May 10 09:18:00 1996
To: David Schwartz aka Joel Katz <stimpson@stimpson.igc.net>
cc: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 May 1996 03:35:37 EDT."
<Pine.LNX.3.91.960510033311.5020A-100000@stimpson.igc.net>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 09:09:13 -0400
From: Erik Sherk <sherk@uunet.uu.net>
>
> Let's look at a hypothetical situation. ISP1 peers at MAE-E and
> buys transit from MCI there. Now they ask Sprint to peer with them. Let's
> look at how they reach sites on the west coast.
This is a violation of the rules of Mae-East: it is not to be used for
customer connections. ISP1 must have a private connection to MCI.
Erik
> Without peering, MCI gives the packets to Sprint at MAE-East and
> Sprint returns packets to MCI at some west coast nap. That is, MCI and
> Sprint share the coast-to-coast traffic.
>
> With peering, Sprint must take the packets all the to MAE-E as it
> has a shorter AS path. All the coast-to-coast cost is borne by Sprint.
>
> Do you get that? Now do you understand the 3 NAP rule?
>
> David Schwartz
>
> On Thu, 9 May 1996, Alan Hannan wrote:
>
> > So, comes my curiosity, and my puzzling thoughts about the current
> > state of the net. Why is it not in my best interest to talk to
> > NSPX at a meet point? Why, when it is in MY customer's best
> > interest to talk to EVERYONE, would I not converse, and share
> > knowledge and invitations about my customer base?
