On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:47:38 +0100 "Alex.Bligh" <amb@xara.net> alleged:
1a/ LargeISP realises adding another peer adds to router load, both in the sense of running more BGP sessions and increasing memory load as if LargeISP is already seeing these routes somehow he has to keep yet another path.
1b/ Large ISP does not want the administrative burden of keeping another peer active when they get little perceived benefit from the peering session (more people to contact if they change router config etc.)
Gee, If people had thought like this 4 or 5 years ago, I wonder if we'd have an Internet.
Note that for most of Europe (not currently true in Demon's case) the traffic would otherwise go through icp/icm and Sprint gets paid in the end for this. So it is somewhat ironic that Sprints larger competitors would rather pay Sprint than peer with European providers.
This isn't true for most UK ISP's Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>