nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak () ai net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:01:50 -0400
[deleted] To put this another way, imagine two networks. One is a large content provider, they target webhosting customers. One is a large access provider, they target end-users. I think that being able to reach a large number of end-users is a benefit to the first network. I also think that being able to reach a large amount of content is a benefit to the second network. If they peer, their traffic ratio will be 1:1 yet both networks gain significant ( imho ) benefit. Bill and keep seems the only sensible way to me. --- If they peer, the traffic ratio will _NOT_ be 1:1, more like 10:1 or 1:10 [depending on which way you are looking]. Regards, Deepak Jain AiNET
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) Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd) Chris Parker (Jul 01)