Peering versus Transit

Peering is becoming a real touchy issue. Most of the larger providers
don't really want to peer with anyone else because they can't really handle
the extra traffic, or they are afraid of peering with a company that
doesn't have the technical staff that is truly knowledgable about backbone

With the major peering points getting more accessable to smaller providers,
this becomes even more evident. And to be truthful, it can be understood.
Their have been quite a ISP's get temporarily shutdown at one of the MAE's
because of "errors" in routing procedures.

No names mentioned, but for example about changing peering requirements.
One of the larger providers said they required three meet points + 2-3
private interconnects at DS-3 or higher... when we said that we could do
that by the end of November, they said, "Really?.. that is going to cost
both companies a large sum in hardware and DS-3 local loop fees." They
changed their requirements to be just three meet points.

If you look at the monthly cost of buying a DS-3 from MCI, Sprint, UUNet,
AGIS, or PSI, it is much cheaper to get a connection to a MAE, and trying
to get peering.


But you're talking about getting connections to 3 exchange points and
the "stuff" in between. I would say costs might be roughly even.

But what about when you add in the network engineering, monitoring,
and maintenance you need when you run your own network? Have you
checked out market price on clueful network people who dance with
BGP? The cost comparison might look different then...


Yes, at that point it is much less to buy access from a large NSP. The
problem is that you lose a lot when you do that. You can't make any money
if you are getting your access from a up-stream provider.

Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!