[44522] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a question about the economics of peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Fri Nov 30 15:37:20 2001
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:36:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: Giles Heron <giles@packetexchange.net>
Cc: "David R. Dick" <drd@sii-nh.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3C07C3FB.453DEBB@packetexchange.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.33.0111301534500.1456-100000@phosphorus.hq.nac.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> but what if the *unnamed-ethernet-extension-company* wasn't providing
> access to public exchange points, but was rather enabling uncongested
> private peering over its network? That way latency and hop count are
> both mimimised.
But, *unnamed-ethernet-extension-company*, to me, only marketed access to
other exchange points.
Also, what does hop count have to do with latency and loss? Especially,
when *unnamed-ethernet-extension-company* is using MPLS/IP (presumably) to
do this?
> BTW, public IXen in Europe don't tend to be congested. Whether this is
> the result of better management, or of lower traffic volumes, than IXen
> in the US I'm not sure...
Probably better management, is my guess.
> =================================================================
> Giles Heron Principal Network Architect PacketExchange Ltd.
> ph: +44 7880 506185 "if you build it they will yawn"
> =================================================================
