[7231] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering charges?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave O'Shea)
Sun Jan 26 03:30:57 1997
From: "Dave O'Shea" <doshea@mail.wiltel.net>
To: "Vadim Antonov" <avg@pluris.com>, <davec@ziplink.net>,
<madison@queber.acsi.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 02:21:14 -0600
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@pluris.com>
> >Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced
accounting
> >features into their software settlements could start any time.
>
> a) the accounting was there for years, so what
.. But the huge glut of "I wanna be an ISP too!" guys operating a Cisco
2500 out of their garage was not. A large number of ISP's simply don't know
what they're doing; witness the universal broadcasting of RFC1597
addresses.
>
> b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Should A
pay
> to B or vice versa?
It's the golden rule - "He who has the gold, makes the rules". Not that the
idea isn't without problems.. But seeing peering procedures formalized
would make life easier, even if it cost a few bucks. Being a fairly small
start up, I know that the odds of UUnet cutting me a check every month are
between slim and none.
You can tell this list is populated only by Real Engineers. Ten messages
and counting on Saturday night. :-)
