[5942] in North American Network Operators' Group
Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Wed Oct 30 11:42:15 1996
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:35:39 -0500
To: Pritish Shah <pritish@iocenter.net>
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Apparently people are still missing the point. On a shared media
exchange, there is nothing to preclude another entity from pointing
default to you even if they are *not* peering with you [a.k.a. bit-dumping].
- paul
At 11:15 AM 10/30/96 -0500, Pritish Shah wrote:
>
>So far from what I have gathered, everyone is afraid of being used as a
>transit point. There is a very simple solution available which I can't
>figure out why people are not using.
>
>Both peers charge each other for the bits being peered. So now if one
>peer is being used as a transit point, then they get compensated for it.
>
>Eg
>
>AAA BBB
>15443621 bits -> 15443621 bits
>20000000 bits <- 20000000 bits
>
>
>Difference 4556379 bits additional sent from BBB to AAA
>
>Applying lets say 1 cent per 100 bit charge, AAA gets $455.64 from BBB
>
>Simple!!!!
>
>Now with this kind of peering arrangement, no one has to be worried about
>being used as a transit point -- infact they will want to be used as a
>transit point.
>
>This will also allow medium sized ISPs to peer with each-other.
>
>So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used
>anywhere???
>
>Pritish
>
