Re: Peering versus Transit

[Peter Galbavy <peter () wonderland org>]

> plus
>
> 1a/   LargeISP realises adding another peer adds to router load,
>       both in the sense of running more BGP sessions and increasing
>       memory load as if LargeISP is already seeing these routes
>       somehow he has to keep yet another path.
>
> 1b/   Large ISP does not want the administrative burden of keeping
>       another peer active when they get little perceived benefit
>       from the peering session (more people to contact if they
>       change router config etc.)

Note these points are exactly what is requiring us to redefine our own
peering criteria at the LINX. It is primarily the "whats in it for us"
decision that will drive the wording of that policy, so to an extend
I am being hypocritical, but I think the scale makes a big difference.

> Peter is thus quite right that it is not sensible (IMHO) to use
> exactly the same peering criteria for US and international
> networks.

In our case, if comeone has made the effort to bring an international
line to the LINX we are very likely to peer with them, in the way
of "respect" rather than any actual technical need to do so. This
applies to a couple of German ISPs and one from Holland - you know who
you are, but we are still rebuiling the routers :)

> Peter - Re Sprint - this may have something to do with the fact
> it is not too long since Demon were a Sprint customer. Ditto AGIS.

Funny you had that thought too :)

regards,
-- 
Peter Galbavy                                           peter () wonderland org
@ Home                                                 phone://44/973/499465
in Wonderland                              http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/
                               snail://UK/NW1_6LE/London/21_Harewood_Avenue/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -