Old rules, modern peering decisions arent made with such common sense ideas in mind but based on power play and a desire for everyone to be your customer! Connectivity, resilience, even commercial saving all seem to be increasingly moved to be on a back burner for many peering managers! I have this at the moment with an operator, we host content their access customers use and have requested improved connectivity to, I see this provider via mutual transit.. they wont peer. Your analysis of the AOL/Cogent situation suggests we're not fully aware of the facts, either that or they really are stupid! Steve On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
Further, if L3/Cogent are settlement-free and both parties are interested in growing the size of their peering connections, wouldn't it make better sense for Cogent all-around? If AOL is not interested in settlement-free peering with them, then AOL can pay to get to them.
I seem to remember some old rule of thumb that basically said anyone who peers with your upstream/transit provider is probably makes sense for you to peer with (because you are otherwise paying to reach them).
I thought *THAT* was the point of peering vs transit for networks that are not transit-free.
Deepak Jain AiNET
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Andrew Partan Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:47 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: AOL & Cogent
I was poking around to see what was happening with Cogent and AOL and ran into some interesting info.
The test that Cogent failed was a 2:1 ratio; Cogent was at 3:1 and AOL insisted they be at no more than 2:1 for free peering.
AOL wants Cogent to pay for peering - the pricing I've heard is $50-/meg for paid peering - which I think is more than street price for transit...
Hmm; I wonder if this change in policy has anything to do with John Schanz's recent move from Sprint to AOL? --asp