peering charges?

Eric D. Madison wrote:

Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced accounting
features into their software settlements could start any time.

a) the accounting was there for years, so what

b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Should A pay
   to B or vice versa?

   So far nobody gave any useful answer to that question.

There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to relative
worth of connectivity from one provider to another. The large ISPs are
generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume of mutual traffic.


Large ISPs should probably be interested in access to content, without it
their users could find the Internet a very boring place.


Yes, and the current peering requirements are enough to keep most small
ISPs from growing. I am spending 10s of thousands a month over what I need
to spend just because people want to see full DS3 network. I can
understand people would want me to be at all NAPs, but why should I need
10X the bandwidth I need for my customers?

There are also problems with providers saying that I need to be at every
NAP they are at, but what do I do when say a NAP in the east can't give me
a connection? They first don't want to let me in at all, then they say
that we can't connect until they get a new gigaswitch. I was able to get a
gigaswitch for my NAP in 24 hours, why would it take 6 weeks?

Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc.

Well, my guess would be that if you don't have a DS3 backbone, why
would the big guys want to peer with you anyway? If you don't need
that much bandwidth (or don't have it) odds are you don't have enough
customers for the big guys to want to peer with you. The DS3 backbone
requirement is just a nicer way of saying that (and it is a
quantifiable level).


Ah, yes I do that is what I am spending the big bucks on. The prob I have
is getting up peering with a NSP that wants us to be at all the NAPs they
are at. We are all all and more, except Sprint NAP and that is because
they are waiting on new hardware.

Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc.

Your right on that last comment about market share.. say your MCI and you
have a smaller provider that wants to peer with you, you had rather have
them buy a pipe than let the peer and ride your network for free.
It's all about market share, plain and simple.