[49419] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Rosenthal)
Mon Jul 1 13:38:02 2002
Reply-To: <pr@isprime.com>
From: "Phil Rosenthal" <pr@isprime.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:22:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20020701164450.AAA168@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food,
they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it,
no?
--Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
David Schwartz
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:45 PM
To: vgill@vijaygill.com; Mike Leber
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
>
>Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> writes:
>
>>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by
>>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage.
>
>A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
>
>Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by
>interconnecting with each other?
>
>If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X and
>Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal value by
>interconnecting with the other, than that party usually balks.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much
value Y gets
out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should
charge
hungrier people more for a Whopper.
DS
