[4838] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering versus Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex.Bligh)
Mon Sep 30 04:04:55 1996
To: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:29:00 EDT."
<324f4f9f0.63c@databus.databus.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 09:01:14 +0100
From: "Alex.Bligh" <amb@xara.net>
> > Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:11:57 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>
> >
> > Yes, but can we agree that dumping data to someons router at a NAP
> > without asking is steeling?
>
> Is it really the case that people with routers at exchange points actually
> consider a packet addressed to one of their own customers to be theft of
> service?
Ur yes, this is theft. Take Alans scenario again:
A = small provider
B = Top tier provider (MCI / Sprint etc.)
C = A's transit provider !=B
Now magnify this on an international scale so you the costs involved
are scaled to a point where they are obvious.
Let's say B sells transit in London as well as in Washington. Both
A and C have invested in international lines to the US ( DS3 = $8/yr ).
A & B are at at the same IX in London. A's transit is going to cost
lots and lots over in the UK. Dumping traffic on B means they don't
have to pay C so much, and use B's international line.
> And of course, to be in a position to "dump data" on a router at an
> exchange, one must have one's own router there peering with *somebody*,
> right?
You needn't peer with anyone
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 w.x.y.z
will do the trick nicely if you aren't carrying full routing.
Alex Bligh
Xara Networks
