RE: Sprint peering policy

["Deepak Jain" <deepak () ai net>]

WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to
deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers
of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions disappear. A large ISPs
fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP.

Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a
significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large network to
waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 2mb/s of bandwidth
nowadays (for medium sized networks and above). A few megabits a second is
nothing.

Deepak Jain
AiNET


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
Miquel van Smoorenburg
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy



In article
<cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/
l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA () isprime com>,
Phil Rosenthal <pr () isprime com> wrote:
> Apples and oranges.  Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
> they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP".  Wcom would likely
> not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to.  They gain
> absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty.  Wcom's
> costs only increase since they need "more ports".

Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if

- connection cost is very low (shared ethernet)
- they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location
- they only announce regional routes to Joe
- they use hot potato routing everywhere

in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably
all that Joe is after anyway

Mike.