[49815] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: OT - Importance of Content
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL))
Wed Jul 10 14:07:18 2002
From: "Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL)" <sowens@epik.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:06:29 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I agree, but as a regional player most large players won't peer with us
anyway from my discussions with them. Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong
people...:-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph T. Klein [mailto:jtk@titania.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:00 PM
To: Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL); nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: OT - Importance of Content
Careful.
Unbalanced traffic can cause difficulties with peering. The eyeball heavy
networks will tend to peer with you but a long list of large (route table)
players will not.
--On Wednesday, 10 July 2002 13:49 -0400 "Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL)"
<sowens@epik.net> wrote:
>
> I was wondering the importance of content to IP providers. Is it
> feasible to go after a lot of hosting companies and such as a business
> model and greatly skew your traffic ratios to hopefully reach a
> critical mass. I would think at some point you would have so much
> content that people would start to come to you for peering or to
> purchase access to get to that content which would cause a reduction
> in overall transit costs, but what would that critical mass be and how
> valid is that thought?
>
> Opinions?
>
> Shane Owens
>
>
>
--
Joseph T. Klein jtk@titania.net
"Why do you continue to use that old Usenet style signature?"
-- anon
