[38528] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New peering criteria
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vijay Gill)
Wed Jun 6 17:13:20 2001
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:12:46 -0400
From: Vijay Gill <vijay@umbc.edu>
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20010606204433.11982.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.31L.02.0106061708070.10936677-100000@irix2.gl.umbc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 6 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
> I agree, but how do you decide who is hurt more?
Turn off connectivity and see.
> And therefore who should be the vendor and who is the customer?
See above.
> Is the "bigger" network always the vendor, or is the network with more
> content the vendor, or the network with more eyeballs the vendor? That's
> what I don't understand about the "balance" requirement. Ok, so you know
> the traffic is imbalanced, but whose fault/hurt is it when traffic is
> imbalanced? And who is responsible for "fixing" the imbalance in traffic?
> The simple answer is I'm the vendor and you are the customer, so you should
> pay me.
The simple answer is: Do the people you are selling to ask how your
connectivity to <Network A> is AND if Network A's sales people get asked
the same question about _your_ network.
If not, then giddy up and start following the "sales process (C) 2001 smd"
/vijay "time to put the peer back in peering" gill
