[5764] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy Porter)
Sat Oct 26 16:51:58 1996
To: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net>
cc: alex@relcom.eu.net, lists@reflections.mindspring.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Oct 1996 21:37:48 BST."
<Pine.BSI.3.91.961025213506.22077A-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 15:46:36 -0500
From: Jeremy Porter <jerry@fc.net>
In message <Pine.BSI.3.91.961025213506.22077A-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, Jim
Dixon writes:
>On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 alex@relcom.eu.net wrote:
>
>> > We peer with 30 other networks at the LINX in London, including GSL
>> > (Sprintlink), Pipex (uu.net), and EUnet GB (AKA PSI). If you watch the
>
>> There is interesting question - does SprintLink use this peering
>> for the traffic _from USA_ to _you_, or for it's UK customers only?
>
>It appears that GSL announces all of their _European_ routes to us,
>but we don't see any US SprintLink routes. (Or Asian routes, as I
>recall.)
Because of the issue of costs of IPLs this is exactly the International
version of not peering with you unless you got to multiple exchange
points in the US (a la, MCI/Sprint, etc.)
Local peering at no charge is almost always to both parties
benifit. (assuming the traffic off-loading compares
favorably to the cost of setting up the peering.)
But I've said this before in many different ways.
Also as market share in other localaties (i.e. UK) increases
greater % of local traffic stays local, reducing the % cost
and need for international private lines, thus working
to elimiate the "subsidy".
Obivously the whole issue of internaional settlements and peering
policy is about where US based NAP/MAE peering was two
years ago. With perhaps some benifit of the learning/bloodshed
in the US.
---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net
