[2902] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Worldly Thoughts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Curado)
Sun May 12 09:49:39 1996
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 09:53:30 -0400
From: Dave Curado <dcurado@neteng.nis.newscorp.com>
To: alan@gi.net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> ] > 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.
Hey, depends on your upstream provider and the NAP you're talking
about... for some "Large" providers and at least one NAP, the reverse
is true. =-)
davec
