[54309] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AOL & Cogent
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Fri Dec 20 17:35:11 2002
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 22:34:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
Cc: Andrew Partan <asp@partan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <GPEOJKGHAMKFIOMAGMDIEECCDEAB.deepak@ai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Old rules, modern peering decisions arent made with such common sense ideas in
mind but based on power play and a desire for everyone to be your customer!
Connectivity, resilience, even commercial saving all seem to be increasingly
moved to be on a back burner for many peering managers!
I have this at the moment with an operator, we host content their access
customers use and have requested improved connectivity to, I see this provider
via mutual transit.. they wont peer.
Your analysis of the AOL/Cogent situation suggests we're not fully aware of the
facts, either that or they really are stupid!
Steve
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
