nanog mailing list archives
Re: peering charges?
From: Michael Dillon <michael () memra com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:31:49 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote:
An simplified example. Lets say I have a direct T1 between A and B. A starts to transfer 4 GBytes from B to A and uses 100% of the bandwidth. Then B starts another transfer of 4GBytes from A to B. Both now use 50% of the bandwidth and each transfer takes twice as long.
T1's are bidirectional. Only the ACK's slow down the transfer a tiny bit.
That pricing model is the problem. You are asked to pay for the potential of transporting data, not for transporting data. Circuit switching's heritage. Packet networks need a different pricing model.
I think the success of the global Internet shows that packet networks don't need a different pricing model. The pricing model is part of the reason for their success. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael () memra com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: peering charges?, (continued)
- Re: peering charges? Mike Leber (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Michael Dillon (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Alex.Bligh (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Edward Henigin (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Alex.Bligh (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Deepak Jain (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Michael Dillon (Jan 27)