On Fri, Aug 21, 1998 at 03:36:08PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
In fact, what you're advocating is billing the sender for *solicited data* from the recipient's point of view!
Not at all. I am advocating paying for transit.
On the contrary. If I buy a DS1 for transit from your network, I'm expecting the person I pay to provide transit - ALL OF THE TRANSIT. That's what I'm buying! Now what you're saying is that "oh, no, that's not really what you bought"! I'm sure the thousands of DS-1 connected CUSTOMERS (that is, transit purchasers) will find this a very, very interesting interpretation.
Regardless of whether my proposed solution is the correct one or just a bad idea produced by indigestion, you cannot deny that the asymmetry between networks is increasing as network providers specialize the services they offer. The old-fashioned rough-cut peering is becoming more and more unsuitable as the only peering option. We need new ways to do this. Somebody has to take the first step. Somebody has to be a pioneer.
No, its actually becoming MORE suitable. Instead of burning the entire circuit in both directions, you're only burning half of it now (one direction).
The details can always be hashed out later.
You're simply wrong, once again. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost