nanog mailing list archives
Re: T3 or not to T3
From: Chris Caputo <ccaputo () alt net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 00:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Dorian R. Kim wrote:
From a provider's point of view, if a site wanted to connect, andwas willing to sign a use-policy saying they wouldn't use the connection for transit to other providers (i.e. would only ask for customer BGP and only route to the nets you provide in BGP updates), would that site have lower costs associated with it? (that you could pass on?)It would seem to me that, as long as the site is an interesting enough traffic source, and the ISP can recoup whatever cost of offering that connection + margin(or not). Speaking only for CICNet, given that the site is an interesting traffic source, we'd gradly offer a connection for what it costs to provide that connection, if such request came to us.
Who else will do this? MCI, Sprint? This seems like a new and growing market. Is it being added to the service menus of various backbones? We'd love to talk to any backbone that will do this. Chris Caputo President, Altopia Corporation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: T3 or not to T3, (continued)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Nathan Stratton (Jul 22)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Karl Mueller (Jul 22)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Nathan Stratton (Jul 22)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Avi Freedman (Jul 22)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Alec H. Peterson (Jul 23)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Stephen Stuart (Jul 22)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Chris Caputo (Jul 22)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Dean Gaudet (Jul 21)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Avi Freedman (Jul 21)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Dorian R. Kim (Jul 21)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Jim Van Baalen (Jul 22)
- Re: T3 or not to T3 Avi Freedman (Jul 22)