Neil, You are assuming that the goal of all internet service providers is to have the best connectivity possible, without respect for cost, administrative overhead, or market strategy. If X is really really big, and Y is really really small, then perhaps it would benefit X to have Y as a paying customer instead of as a peer. The word peer implies equals, as it has so long been repeated. If provider X is missing 0.01% of the market share, and provider Y is missing 20% of the market share, who will be more upset, I ask.. -alan
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 21:38:36 -0800 (PST) Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> alleged:
The point was not who did what to whom. The point was bending policies due to certain circumstances and forced peering due to these. I do recall you having transit via geonet for a while however on the network in question. Same issue, on a much smaller scale, than AGIS/Digex situation. I agree with taking this offline, and discussing the "issue" rather than the particular situation between our networks.
It seems a bit insane that people are required to be at N peering points for provider x to peer with provider y. If provider x and y can't reach each but are both at a peering point then surely thats a good enough reason to peer?
Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
-- Alan Hannan Not Employed Networking, Ltd. email: alan@mindvision.com. phone: 402/488-0238