[54307] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AOL & Cogent
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Fri Dec 20 17:10:46 2002
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Andrew Partan" <asp@partan.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:09:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20021219194724.GA95318@partan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Further, if L3/Cogent are settlement-free and both parties are interested in
growing the size of their peering connections, wouldn't it make better sense
for Cogent all-around? If AOL is not interested in settlement-free peering
with them, then AOL can pay to get to them.
I seem to remember some old rule of thumb that basically said anyone who
peers with your upstream/transit provider is probably makes sense for you to
peer with (because you are otherwise paying to reach them).
I thought *THAT* was the point of peering vs transit for networks that are
not transit-free.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Andrew Partan
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:47 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: AOL & Cogent
>
>
>
> I was poking around to see what was happening with Cogent and AOL
> and ran into some interesting info.
>
> The test that Cogent failed was a 2:1 ratio; Cogent was at 3:1 and
> AOL insisted they be at no more than 2:1 for free peering.
>
> AOL wants Cogent to pay for peering - the pricing I've heard is
> $50-/meg for paid peering - which I think is more than street price
> for transit...
>
> Hmm; I wonder if this change in policy has anything to do with John
> Schanz's recent move from Sprint to AOL?
> --asp
>
