nanog mailing list archives
Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () quake net>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:01:58 -0700
Yes, but then from the point of view of large ISP the peering is of zero value. You see, it has to deliver packets to IXP anyway. OTOH, the load on routers, bloated configurations and engineering resources to support the additional peering are quite real.
Not quite zero - if you have direct Small/Big vs Small/Transit/Big, then you bypass any potential problems with Transit. --asp () partan com (Andrew Partan)
Well, but then you get problems with Small being sloppy with what they announce. Transit is large and supposedly is clueful enough (and have resources to develop tools) to ensure some sanity of routing information. Overall, the balance of problems is still zero; but the risk that your other business will be harmed is less in case of transit. --vadim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings Vadim Antonov (Oct 26)
- Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings Andrew Partan (Oct 26)
- Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings Robert Laughlin (Oct 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings Vadim Antonov (Oct 26)
- Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings Vadim Antonov (Oct 27)