Peering versus Transit


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 these points are exactly what is requiring us to redefine our own
peering criteria at the LINX. It is primarily the "whats in it for us"
decision that will drive the wording of that policy, so to an extend
I am being hypocritical, but I think the scale makes a big difference.

Peter is thus quite right that it is not sensible (IMHO) to use
exactly the same peering criteria for US and international

In our case, if comeone has made the effort to bring an international
line to the LINX we are very likely to peer with them, in the way
of "respect" rather than any actual technical need to do so. This
applies to a couple of German ISPs and one from Holland - you know who
you are, but we are still rebuiling the routers :slight_smile:

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.

Funny you had that thought too :slight_smile: