Re: Transit and Paid Peering Exchanges

[Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>]

Certainly - I'd be happy to.

- Dan

> From: Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Transit and Paid Peering Exchanges
>
> > In general, enterprises are not willing to peer the way that ISPs are - that
> > is, show up, and try to get some peering in a speculative fashion. Most are
> > more comfortable showing up at a site with the expectation to pay, and a
> > good idea of exactly who they can pay to get the services they need
> > (basically, transit, not peering). They also tend to want centralized
> > accounting, and sometimes a route server and a high degree of technical
> > assistance are helpful. The average IXP does not even come close to meeting
> > these requirements, sadly.
>
> There's been talk about running a subscription-based peering brokerage
> service on the west coast, primarily aimed at Asian carriers and networks,
> in exactly the fashion you're describing, and that talk has gone on for
> quite a few years, ever since the first few Japanese carriers showed up at
> the PAIX and had trouble getting peering because of communication (people
> not technical) issues.  The Asia Pacific Internet Consortium nearly got
> it done, but attempts so far seem to have kind of petered out.  I'd be
> interested in seeing what you find out, as would a lot of other people,
> I'm sure.  Can you propose it as a talk to Susan Harris, for a future
> NANOG meeting, if your results are going to be public?
>
>                               -Bill