[33539] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Favorites (Re: UUNET peering policy)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charlie Watts)
Mon Jan 15 19:24:57 2001
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:22:51 -0700 (MST)
From: Charlie Watts <cewatts@frontier.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101151355350.2485-100000@cider.ecosoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.03.10101151712170.17756-100000@animas.frontier.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Travis Pugh wrote:
> Warning: the following is oversimplified:
>
> I think what it comes down to, and what it has come down to at least
> since the inception of hosting companies who spew large amounts of
> traffic back at the access networks, is who gets paid twice for
> carrying the traffic? Does UUNET get paid twice for carrying the
> traffic, once by their customer that pays for dial or leased line
> access and once by the hosting company that pays for peering because
> their traffic ratio is off? This seems to be the status quo. The
> other way around would mean that the hosting company got paid twice
> for carrying the traffic.
If I am a generic business, and I connect to UUNET twice, in different
locations, and the ONLY traffic I send is between my two offices, should I
expect a discount on transit?
No. I would expect to pay it at both ends.
What is the difference?
--
"Do not pound nails into glass", said Tom
painstakingly.
Charlie Watts
cewatts@frontier.net
