[49457] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Mon Jul 1 16:42:35 2002
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <kawaii_iinazuke@hotmail.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:42:03 -0700
In-Reply-To: <F104sBREeygvBwxCfL200003526@hotmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:15:21 -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
>You wouldn't buy the notion of reciprical billing? I think this=
would most
>likely be the fairest, but maybe the hardest to implement. It=
would either
>have to be done at the end points, or at every interconnect. In=
this
>method, if the traffic across an interconnect would truely be a=
1 to 1
>ratio, then the bills would cancel each other out, where the 1=
to 1.6 or so
>would lean in towards favoring the company taking more traffic=
onto it's
>network.
=09Why favor the company that took more traffic? Why not favor the=
company that
provided more traffic? Your customers pay you both to delivery=
their packets
to others and to deliver packets to them, right? If I go to a web=
page,
presumably the web page owner wants to receive my request and=
show me his
content about as much as I want to see his content, no?
=09DS
