nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
From: "Ukyo Kuonji" <kawaii_iinazuke () hotmail com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:15:21 -0400
From: Paul A Flores <floresp10 () cox net> Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_ would buy off on that, would be to have some kind of subsidy paid from tax dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with people who have no other redeeming value.
You wouldn't buy the notion of reciprical billing? I think this would most likely be the fairest, but maybe the hardest to implement. It would either have to be done at the end points, or at every interconnect. In this method, if the traffic across an interconnect would truely be a 1 to 1 ratio, then the bills would cancel each other out, where the 1 to 1.6 or so would lean in towards favoring the company taking more traffic onto it's network.
It's just a thought, and I am not sure how it would work world-wide. _________________________________________________________________MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Current thread:
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Ukyo Kuonji (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Chris Parker (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Chris Parker (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) E.B. Dreger (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) E.B. Dreger (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Chris Parker (Jul 01)