[2891] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Worldly Thoughts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Sat May 11 20:06:54 1996
From: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:05:01 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <9605110249.AA04557@wisdom.home.vix.com> from "Paul A Vixie" at May 10, 96 07:49:41 pm
] > Or, possible some small providers buy a multi-megabit circuit from a
] > large provider who gives them transit. The small provider then connects
] > at a single NAP and picks up bilateral peering sessions with a bunch
] > of people there. The result is offloading traffic from their
] > "transit link", which stands a good chance of being priced as a
] > "burstable" link. (pay for what you use) That gives the small
] > provider an economic incentive to operate in this manner.
] Quite a few CIX members operate this way. The interesting question in my
] mind is whether the "big guys" (defaultless nets, for the purposes of this
] discussion) think that this represents unfair competition or not.
We've a defaultless net, but I'm not sure that I'm considered a
'Big Guy'. Hell, we only route 1% of the internet, but maybe if I
lost my aggregates I could be bigger ;)
The hidden metric that davec above doesn't consider is latency.
If I peer at a NAP, I forgo the latency my upstream 'multi-megabit
circuit' incurs.
This is a consideration, you know.
-alan
