Peering versus Transit

I think Peter G's original point was that they are spending $8m/yr
(L5m/yr) connecting to just MAE-East. I'm not sure I agree with Peter
that constructing a network beyond that in the US is entirely redundant,
but it is surely illogical to class an $8m network in the same category
as just a $5700 network.

Yes, but not MAE-East. Contructing a network would be nice, but to what
puprose ? I take three DS3s to MAE-{East,West) and the Sprint NAP...
three more BGP sessions per distributed peer, three more routers, three
more engineers.

Great for the economy and router manufacterers (do you know how to
say "Cisco are not the only fruit" ?) but when I can (at my cost
maybe - but it would be nice to see some others pay there share)
install a single line to each peers nearest real NOC and get *and* give
connectivity that way, then why not ?

If this mythical line is to an IX then no problem, but pleas, not
three or four. Pointless, pointless, pointless...


Here are some observations I'd throw out there..

Any tier 1 provider can look at someone who shows up at just a single EP and
say, why should I have to haul all traffic through my backbone so I can
exchange traffic at one coast?

In case of a European provider who drags a line across the pond, the earlier
argument of inequal distribution of cost is not strictly an issue.

However, given today's litigious climate (at least in US), how can the
said tier 1 provider peer with a European provider who shows up at a single EP
and cover their backside, legally?

Furthermore, for those providers that looks at the globe as their market (MCI
& BT with Concert, Sprint with Global One, UUNET with their international
extensions etc) how do they make a rational decision as to who they peer with
and who are their potential customers?