![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
From: "Schliesser, Benson" <bensons () savvis net>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:34:35 -0500
Michael Dillon wrote:
P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic exchange was paid for and there was no settlement free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid full transit and paid partial transit on the menu?
Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit: the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes? If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by their respective (different) service providers (all other issues being equal) is one provider in a better position than the other? Cheers, -Benson
Current thread:
- Fw: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Michael . Dillon (Oct 06)
- Re: Fw: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) JC Dill (Oct 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Schliesser, Benson (Oct 06)
- Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Paul Vixie (Oct 06)
- RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Michael . Dillon (Oct 07)
- RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Schliesser, Benson (Oct 07)
- Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Paul Vixie (Oct 07)