[38454] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PSINet and C&W peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Tue Jun 5 11:25:59 2001
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:25:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
To: Mitchell Levinn <levinn@psi.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010605093520.00995450@spool1.mail.troy.psi.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106051118180.26997-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Mitchell Levinn wrote:
> - PSINet's recent addition of direct private peering with several
> of C&W's transit customers relieved the peering connections
> between the networks of a couple hundred Mbps of traffic
> (improving connectivity overall and, undoubtedly, lowering costs
> for those transit customers). This is significant only because
> C&W claims PSINet no longer has sufficient traffic to justify
> the connections according to their published standards. In
> fact, PSINet's overall traffic continues to grow.
Now, while I agree that this would provide a better path between 174 and
whoever these multi-hundred Mb/s peers are, I can also understand why C&W
might have gotten a bit miffed. That's a couple of hundred megabytes of
flow that they can no longer bill to those customers. I'd ALWAYS rather
have my customers use our network for transit than have them peer directly
with my peers and bypass the toll booth. That said, if this was their
reasoning for terminating the peering agreement, I don't agree with them
at all. I'd be upset about it if I were them but, I wouldn't be stupid
about the situation.
---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
