On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Payne wrote:
What am I missing?
That it's a pure power play.
market position is important
Peering is only distantly associated with costs or responsibilities.
no, peering is entirely associated with costs or responsibilities.. what other reason is there to peer ?
It has to do with what company has the intestinal fortitude to draw a line in the sand and stick with it no matter how many customers cancel their service.
have to weigh up the gains and losses to see if that is a good or bad thing tho.
Those with a critical mass of traffic and the right amount of guts win.
markets are always stacked in favour of the larger players in that way.. saying 'hey i'm a little guy, give me chance' generally goes unheard
Everyone else loses the peering game.
not peering isnt necessarily losing, there are networks who would peer with me if i turned up in asia or the west coast, but my cost to get there is greater than sticking to transit. to get a new peer, both sides need to feel they are gaining value Steve