[7234] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering charges?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Stratton)
Sun Jan 26 10:34:00 1997
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:30:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>
To: Jonathan Heiliger <loco@isi.net>
cc: Vadim Antonov <avg@pluris.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970126001113.657B-100000@buffy.isi.net>
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jonathan Heiliger wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
> |} There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to
> |} relative worth of connectivity from one provider to another. The large
> |} ISPs are generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume
> |} of mutual traffic.
>
> Large ISPs should probably be interested in access to content, without it
> their users could find the Internet a very boring place.
Yes, and the current peering requirements are enough to keep most small
ISPs from growing. I am spending 10s of thousands a month over what I need
to spend just because people want to see full DS3 network. I can
understand people would want me to be at all NAPs, but why should I need
10X the bandwidth I need for my customers?
There are also problems with providers saying that I need to be at every
NAP they are at, but what do I do when say a NAP in the east can't give me
a connection? They first don't want to let me in at all, then they say
that we can't connect until they get a new gigaswitch. I was able to get a
gigaswitch for my NAP in 24 hours, why would it take 6 weeks?
Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc.
Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5
WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Arlington, VA 22201
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
