Peering versus Transit


  I'm not Randy, but I did state the previous definition.

    > A = Little ISP
    > B = Sprint or MCI
    > C = Other transit provider

    In this case, the resource is transit purchased by A from C, for the
    use of A's customers. In this case, B is "stealing" A's transit
    resource for the use of B's customers, without compensating A.

  I don't agree. B is utilizing A's transit resource in the manner
  A intended.

C is a
    hapless bystander who now has to carry a lot of unneccessary traffic
    which could be flowing directly between A and B.

  Again, I don't agree.

  C is compensated by A to provide flow from B<->C<->A.

  C is not a hapless bystander, C is a provider to A, who provides A
  with a path out to the world, and provides the world (of which B
  is a subset) a path back to A. C is rewarded for their compliance
  through an agreement with A.

    Please explain to me how this creates a better, faster, cheaper, more
    reliable Internet.

  It creates a better internet as A is encouraed to purchase QOS X
  from C in order to allow A's customers both nice access and a nice
  presence on the Internet.

  C is encouraged to grow through economy of scale by providing
  transit for various entities, and, if they're really clever, will
  hit A and B coming and going :slight_smile:

  A wants to have nice connectivity to the world/B, so it is
  (assumedly) in their (A's) best interest to pay for such.

  The interesting thing in all of these discussions is to consider
  if A wants to talk to B more than B wants to talk to A. If C is
  not at either endpoint, then C must recover cost of transit from
  one or both. In a socialist world, some rule of law would
  establish an "equal" method of paying for such. In a capitalist
  world, we get to have discussions like these :slight_smile:

  At least, that's how I see it.