|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:32:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> To: Peter Galbavy <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> In-Reply-To: <03a801c14c1b$a0214f10$5d00a8c0@interhouse.redbus.com> Message-ID: <20011003182100.M14463-100000@sequoia.muada.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Peter Galbavy wrote: > "I am a big ISP, you are a smaller connectivity/access provider. You pay me > for requesting traffic through my network." > "I am a big ISP, you are a smaller ISP who does mainly hosting. You pay me > for sending traffic through my network." This is all simple economics. As long as there is sufficient competition, everybody pretty much pays reasonable prices. If the small networks operate only in one region and the large network continent- or world wide, it is entirely reasonable that the large network won't peer: they would carry the majority of the traffic transport costs. On the other hand, if the small network is also continent-wide but just not as big, it would be unreasonable and anti-competitive. > I can't wait until the DoJ or the EUCC leaves off M$ enough to investigate > the 'free market' of peering and excahnge points. Can't be too long. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |