Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:52:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
Essentially, he said that paying more for peering that for transit is typical, and to be expected, and most people accept this.
<sarcasm> And paying more for dialup than OC3s is typical, and most people accept this. </sarcasm> Does this salesdroid even know WTH peering and transit provide? Sorry, I just don't seeing anyone with a modicum of sense paying more for a few thousand routes (with little or no redundancy, depending on peering arrangements) than a full table with a fair amount of redundancy. At the risk of overgeneralizing, it sounds like he's fresh out of cableco school. I once contacted a couple of cable companies re peering... and they wanted to charge more than transit. They considered it "priority service" and thought there'd be no benefit to them. Ungh? I mentioned this on a mailing list (isp-whatever? inet-access? NANOG?) a while back, and someone else responded that s/he'd had a similar experience. Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.