Peering versus Transit

Alan Hannan ( writes:
        > I'm not Randy, but I did state the previous definition.
    Yeah, I know, I was just particularly surprised by Randy's dismissive
        > B is utilizing A's transit resource in the manner
        > A intended.
    Purse snatchers utilize little old ladies' purses in the manner little
    old ladies intend?
    That's ascribing intention to A unreasonably. You appear to be saying
    that if B is ill-intentioned enough to steal from A, that the fact of
    A's existence legitimizes B's theft. Obviously, by this reasoning, A
    would not exist if A didn't _intend_ to get ripped off by B. I find
    this argument unconvincing.
        > C is compensated by A to provide flow from B<->C<->A.
    Again, I'd disagree. If A is buying transit from C, I'd suggest that
    A's primary intention would be to utilize that transit to reach point
    to which A is not already connected.
                 +---+ +---+
                 > A +---------+ B |
                 +---+ +---+
                      \ XP1 /
                       \ /