Eric D. Madison wrote:
Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced accounting features into their software settlements could start any time.
a) the accounting was there for years, so what
b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Should A pay to B or vice versa?
So far nobody gave any useful answer to that question.
There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to relative worth of connectivity from one provider to another. The large ISPs are generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume of mutual
I am encouraged (not that any of you care what I feel) that there is so much dialogue about the market dynamics surrounding this subject. It seems to be a new focus (versus a more esoteric, technical focus) that I believe will drive the industry to making itself a better place for customers. We, the operators, have a challenge to make the 'net an economically viable industry. Right now it is not, but we seem to be headed in the right direction. des ---------- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu on behalf of Eric D. Madison Sent: Monday, January 27, 1997 8:09 AM To: Vadim Antonov Cc: davec@ziplink.net; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: peering charges? Your right on that last comment about market share.. say your MCI and you have a smaller provider that wants to peer with you, you had rather have them buy a pipe than let the peer and ride your network for free. It's all about market share, plain and simple. Eric _______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc@acsi.net On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote: traffic.
--vadim