[69995] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Irving)
Fri Apr 23 13:57:02 2004
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:56:16 -0500
From: Richard Irving <rirving@onecall.net>
To: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
Cc: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>, alex@yuriev.com,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <408956B2.9050300@ai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Deepak Jain wrote:
>> If "direct connecting" != peering then definitely.
>>
>> Maybe we need to say differentiate between:
>> - Connected transit
>> - Remote transit
>> - Connected peering
>> - Remote peering
>>
>> And agree that, by default,
>> transit ~= remote transit
>> peering ~= direct peering
>
>
> Without getting too complicated.
>
> transit is always direct connection to a single AS, and indirect to all
> others. For simplicity's sake, single-homed customer ASes behind the
> transit AS are not considered apart from the transit AS. It is indirect
> for the rest of the internet, including the sum of all peering (read:
> direct connection without any indirect connections) connectivity.
>
> peering is a always direction connection to a single AS and no indirect
> connections are expected. Again, single-homed customer ASes are
> considered part of the peering AS.
Slight error, there.. While the first always is true, the second
statement may not be..... customers of peers are visible between
two AS's peering.
>
> ASes that can only be reached from a single AS can only be reached by
> those with a direction connection to the upstream AS.
>
> ---
>
> This model [good or bad] allows people who pay for customer-only routes
> from a transit provider they can't settlement-free peer with be
> considered in the same breath as "true peers". For technology concerns,
> I think this is valid. For business reasons there is probably some
> difference.
>
> DJ
