PWG> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:00:35 -0400 PWG> From: Patrick W Gilmore PWG> Any particular reason you would worry about public peering PWG> points these days? ANES, perhaps? Those who finally found old NANOG-L and i-a archives have decided public peering is bad. Hmmmm.... let's see.... cheap, uncongested public peering -vs- expensive private peering. Assuming fixed amount of money to spend, which buys more? There. Now we just need to wait a few more years for the "public peering is good" mentality to spread. Hopefully that will still be the case at that time. :-) PWG> There might be a concern that, for instance, a provider PWG> would show up to a NAP, connect at GigE, then peer with 2 PWG> gigabits of traffic. But I fail to see why that is the PWG> public fabric's fault, or why things would be any different PWG> on private peering. The provider knows when their *nods* Private would be worse. Even collocation + overpriced $500/mo fiber x-c compares favorably with metro OC3. You've gotta admit, though: It's funny watching someone proclaim "we avoid public peering!" when their $149/mo dedicated server lives in a PAIX suite, unbeknowst to them. :-) I guess uncongested public peering technically _is_ avoiding "congested public peering"... Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.