[5947] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dima Volodin)
Wed Oct 30 12:34:59 1996
To: pferguso@cisco.com (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 12:28:10 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pritish@iocenter.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19961030163539.006a0954@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Oct 30, 96 11:35:39 am
From: dvv@sprint.net (Dima Volodin)
Isn't it possible to filter MAC addresses at Gigaswitches?
Dima
Paul Ferguson writes:
>
> 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
> >
>
>
