[69977] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michel Py)
Thu Apr 22 21:30:21 2004
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:29:45 -0700
From: "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
To: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>, <alex@yuriev.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Deepak Jain wrote:
> But that structure doesn't vary vastly if you'd traffic out
> that gig via transit vs direct connect. It does vary (and
> add lots of infrastructure) if you don't aggregate your
> traffic at IXes and instead use loops to bring transit to
> you instead of going to it. (say a few 100Mb/s or OC3s in
> a few places instead of a GigE at an IX).
Indeed.
> Perhaps we should (for technical reasons) describe
> peering as "direct connecting".
This makes a lot of sense to me (although I would suggest a different
name later). Since the beginning I have been trying to make the point
that "direct connecting" was typically a no-brainer in terms of money.
Peering when you have to buy the local loop is not such a slam dunk.
> Business reasons aside, technically the difference is
> that with transit you are expecting access via indirect
> connections to networks.
I'm not so sure about this. There are lots of people that buy transit
and are directly connected to their provider in an IX for example.
> With peering you expect direct connections into a network.
If "direct connecting" !=3D peering then definitely.
Maybe we need to say differentiate between:
- Connected transit
- Remote transit
- Connected peering
- Remote peering
And agree that, by default,
transit ~=3D remote transit
peering ~=3D direct peering
Michel.
