nanog mailing list archives
Re: a question about the economics of peering
From: Nigel Titley <nigel () titley com>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 13:10:38 +0000
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Nigel, Nanog: The original intent of the inquiry was not to bring into question the intelligence of Nigel; I can't speak to that since I don't know him, nor did I even know of him. My communication also does not speak to the potential success of PacketExchange. My question was simply a curiosity ping of _why_ people peer with each other; in my mind, it had always, and never not, been a way to reduce cost of traffic sent/rec'd. I was curious as to whether or not others had a similar view to mine.
And I'd like to place on record that I had no real problem with Alex's original email. It was only when the thread began to drift towards the personal that I spoke up. My own personal view is that there are a number of reasons for peering: including but not limited to cost, shorter paths to desirable data sources, "my network is bigger than yours", reduced latency etc. Mix and match according to company policy/ personal inclination. All the best Nigel
Current thread:
- Re: a question about the economics of peering Simon Lockhart (Dec 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: a question about the economics of peering Nigel Titley (Dec 01)
- Re: a question about the economics of peering Stephane Bortzmeyer (Dec 01)
- RE: a question about the economics of peering Hitesh Patel (Dec 01)
- [OT] RE: a question about the economics of peering Rafi Sadowsky (Dec 01)