> I can see no justification under any circumstances why any provider
> would refuse to peer with another at an established exchange point for
> exchanging their _own_ customers' traffic!
I can give you three:
1/ LargeISP does not want to spend the X hours it takes to
bring up a peering session for SmallISP's routes. The
benefit gained to SmallISP's 5 routes is not great enough.
1a/ LargeISP realises adding another peer adds to router load,
both in the sense of running more BGP sessions and increasing
memory load as if LargeISP is already seeing these routes
somehow he has to keep yet another path.
1b/ Large ISP does not want the administrative burden of keeping
another peer active when they get little perceived benefit
from the peering session (more people to contact if they
change router config etc.)
Note that for most of Europe (not currently true in Demon's case)
the traffic would otherwise go through icp/icm and Sprint gets
paid in the end for this. So it is somewhat ironic that Sprints
larger competitors would rather pay Sprint than peer with
Peter is thus quite right that it is not sensible (IMHO) to use
exactly the same peering criteria for US and international
Peter - Re Sprint - this may have something to do with the fact
it is not too long since Demon were a Sprint customer. Ditto AGIS.