On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Curran wrote:
I do not see how one network can tell another: "You can't send me what my customers are requesting of you."
Depeering seems to say exactly that, no?
No. Presumably, that traffic's still going to be exchanged between the two networks' customers. Depeering just says "go pay someone for transit if you want to talk to our network". Not talking to a network that depeers you is not a long term viable option if you're in the internet access provider business.
If your business model is to provide flat-rate access, it is not _my_ responsibility to ensure your customers do not use more access than your flat-rate can compensate you to deliver.
Agreed... I'm not defending the business model, only pointing out that some folks may find it easier to bill their "peers" than customers.
Seems like some people want to bill both. Not being an expert in Tier1 peering issues, it really seems like the only explanation for this depeering was L3 wanting to raise Cogent's cost of doing business...presumably as an attack on Cogent's business model of selling access way below the average Tier1 going rate. For those who disagree, how does forcing Cogent to pay [anyone, not necessarily L3] for access to L3's network reduce L3's cost of carrying the bits that will flow regardless of whether Cogent's peering with L3 or buying transit to get to L3? I actually can think of a couple possible explanations. Perhaps L3 wanted Cogent to interconnect with them in more places (so they wouldn't have to carry traffic as far), and Cogent refused. If you have a customer in CA, and I have a customer in FL, and we peer, whats a fair way to move that traffic cross country? i.e. We both bill our customers...who pays to move the bits cross country? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________