Er, SPRINT's been doing this forever. Owen

Err, you are missing something. Obviously GTE knows this, that is the point of killing the peering. The question is, is the method the GTE is using to determine who should pay for transit accurate? Turn it around; why shouldn't BBN pay Exodus to terminate the traffic for them?

It just strikes me as odd that BBN is trying to [essentially] apply a telecom-accepted/FCC-tarrifed method of termination payments to IP packets.

In effect, what BBN is doing is revolutionary. However, in my opinion, it is sad to see essentially one of the founders of the Internet to bend the Internet over and break out the Vaseline. However, that is just my opinion.

I wonder what Sprint and MCI's position is on this... Will we see them doing that same?

...

As for any comments made by GTE/BBN regarding uneven traffic flow, I would sure as hell hope that is the case. Surely an HTTP 'GET' request consumes less bandwidth than the content spewed back. Then again, GTE/BBN may be too caught up to realize this, as they could very well be laughing their asses off all the way to the bank.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --