[63662] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Transit and Paid Peering Exchanges
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Golding)
Thu Oct 9 04:51:23 2003
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:50:50 +0200
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0310090023570.482-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Certainly - I'd be happy to.
- Dan
> From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Transit and Paid Peering Exchanges
>
>> In general, enterprises are not willing to peer the way that ISPs are - that
>> is, show up, and try to get some peering in a speculative fashion. Most are
>> more comfortable showing up at a site with the expectation to pay, and a
>> good idea of exactly who they can pay to get the services they need
>> (basically, transit, not peering). They also tend to want centralized
>> accounting, and sometimes a route server and a high degree of technical
>> assistance are helpful. The average IXP does not even come close to meeting
>> these requirements, sadly.
>
> There's been talk about running a subscription-based peering brokerage
> service on the west coast, primarily aimed at Asian carriers and networks,
> in exactly the fashion you're describing, and that talk has gone on for
> quite a few years, ever since the first few Japanese carriers showed up at
> the PAIX and had trouble getting peering because of communication (people
> not technical) issues. The Asia Pacific Internet Consortium nearly got
> it done, but attempts so far seem to have kind of petered out. I'd be
> interested in seeing what you find out, as would a lot of other people,
> I'm sure. Can you propose it as a talk to Susan Harris, for a future
> NANOG meeting, if your results are going to be public?
>
> -Bill
>
>
>
