where if you peer with the network that has
the congestion and there is no money changing hands there is not
a lot of incentive for them to fix it just for you.
I don't see how paying someone to transit to their congested peers
network is better than just peering with the congested network
yourself.
brandon
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.
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
up@3.am http://3.am
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.