[4844] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering versus Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neil J. McRae)
Mon Sep 30 04:52:07 1996
To: "Alex.Bligh" <amb@xara.net>
cc: alan@mindvision.com (Alan Hannan),
wsimpson@greendragon.com (William Allen Simpson), nanog@merit.edu,
neil@EASYNET.NET
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:47:38 BST."
<199609291747.SAA04807@diamond.xara.net>
From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@EASYNET.NET>
Reply-To: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@EASYNET.NET>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 09:48:55 +0100
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:47:38 +0100
"Alex.Bligh" <amb@xara.net> alleged:
> 1a/ LargeISP realises adding another peer adds to router load,
> both in the sense of running more BGP sessions and increasing
> memory load as if LargeISP is already seeing these routes
> somehow he has to keep yet another path.
>
> 1b/ Large ISP does not want the administrative burden of keeping
> another peer active when they get little perceived benefit
> from the peering session (more people to contact if they
> change router config etc.)
>
Gee, If people had thought like this 4 or 5 years ago, I wonder if
we'd have an Internet.
> Note that for most of Europe (not currently true in Demon's case)
> the traffic would otherwise go through icp/icm and Sprint gets
> paid in the end for this. So it is somewhat ironic that Sprints
> larger competitors would rather pay Sprint than peer with
> European providers.
This isn't true for most UK ISP's
Regards,
Neil.
--
Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C
neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor)
Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
