[49432] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Irving)
Mon Jul 1 14:53:13 2002
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 13:51:34 -0500
From: Richard Irving <rirving@onecall.net>
To: Paul A Flores <floresp10@cox.net>
Cc: "'David Schwartz'" <davids@webmaster.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Paul A Flores wrote:
> > On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
> > >
> > >Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> writes:
> Don't you think they would if they could? :)
>
> Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
> Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
> party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they
> are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the
> connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for
> value.
If indeed, two carriers are only exchanging -peer- routes, not transit, how
-could- one or the other feel they are getting an unfair balance of traffic ?
This is -only- unbalanced when the cost of the PORT on the main carrier
exceeds the bandwidth traded... probably payback is a couple hundred
K a second over the course of a year. Then again, of that is all it is
the secondary carrier could hardly cost justify the cost of the wire,
thus self limiting the abuse.
By definition, if it is ONLY peer routes, it would be strictly a trade
of traffic between mutual customers.
Back to my original question.
> -PF
