nanog mailing list archives
Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:53:04 -0700
I hate to ask, but are *you* buying into the host transmit charges? As opposed to client request fee's?
i'm not wedded to sender-pays or to receiver-pays. what i want is to end the subsidies that have brought the internet economy this far. granted that we couldn't have come to where we are in a free market, we can't get on from here without a free market. therefore the people transmitting and/or receiving packets are going to have to pay, in micropayments of some kind or in variable rates through a settlement-like feedback mechanism, for the bandwidth they cause others to have to provision for.
Current thread:
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement, (continued)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Message not available
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Brandon Ross (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Tracy J. Snell (Aug 26)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Patrick Greenwell (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Paul Vixie (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Richard Irving (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Paul A Vixie (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Karl Denninger (Aug 24)