Peering versus Transit

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:47:38 +0100
"Alex.Bligh" <> alleged:

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.)

Gee, If people had thought like this 4 or 5 years ago, I wonder if
we'd have an Internet.

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
European providers.

This isn't true for most UK ISP's


Please remember that 4-5 years ago, things were very very different.
Of course, this is not to say that thing weren't just as fun back then (NSFNET
AUP, CIX, etc, etc)