RE: Sprint peering policy

["Phil Rosenthal" <pr () isprime com>]

In your example, it could work, but they would probably still prefer you
paid 'someone' for it, even if it isn't them. (The mere fact that you
are paying keeps you unable to compete directly with them)
--Phil

-----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+v5
DgN/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.