up@3.am wrote (on Nov 30):

I thought the whole idea of "transit" was that you got connectivity to networks that you can't peer with. Obviously. the packets can't tell if money changes hands or not.

Well, it's hardly "the point" of it. Transit is the purchase of all the prefixes a network sees and the service of having your prefixes advertised to all their peers. This much egg-sucking everyone knows. Whether peering is the mechanism by which you - Reduce transit costs/requirements - Increase network performance - Increase control of your network (exit point for traffic, choice beterrn use of peering/transit, etc) - Increase the "value" of your sales proposition (ergo, by implication, the fact you have all of the above) - boast to your mates down the pub how big your network is is down to your personal/company view. To me, connecting (directly) to those networks which operate within your market (eg, the UK, the EU, etc) is essential to be considered a viable player in said market. To connect (directly) to those outside involves other factors, mostly to do with either cost or marketability - if it's outside the place where your customers are, the relative "feeling" of where the peers are is often overshadowed by the cost/distance/whatever of getting traffic to/from that place anyhow. Within my markets, I'd pay (something) to peer with people. Outside, I need to show I'm saving cash by doing so. Chris.