[49428] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Fiske)
Mon Jul 1 14:09:37 2002
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:08:57 -0700
From: Clayton Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/l8KAAAAQAAAA4pCCZ8LP5026E74U6Ake/wEAAAAA@isprime.com>; from pr@isprime.com on Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:38:57PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:38:57PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their current peers.
Reduced latency? Shorter hop counts? ("Hello, this is customer xxx, why
does it take 27 hops for me to get to xyz.com?") Do these not benefit
them in any way?
> The fact that they failed, having had such extensive peering, proves
> that peering has no relation to financial difficulties (in my mind, at
> least)
I don't think "peering could not overcome corrupt financial officers and
$3B in debt" equates to "peering has no relation to financial
difficulties" exactly.
Here's a fun exercise: Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if your
operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same.
-c
