Any provider that does not recognize the value of bilateral, no-settlement
peering anywhere that its cost-effective for both parties (ie: if you have
traffic destined for me, get it on MY network where I'm being paid to
carry it and let ME figure the rest out!) deserves what they get.
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to
subsidies from large peers to small.
Absolutely correct: can I direct you to two of our articles on the subject
(and a useful graphic):
Zero-settlements work only when peers are of comparable size.
Any attempt to extort pressure to force it upon anyone simply
causes large folks to flee.
That's true: in a conversation with Phil Lawlor (CEO of AGIS), he told me
that one of his customers ISPs, who was also peering with AGIS at the
Mae-E, indulged in "bandwidth stealing" by receiving their Usenet news feed
across Mae-E rather than as an AGIS customer across the few T-1s they had
Surely a hierarchy which implements the rule you outline above works:
a pair of small regional ISPs may want to peer regionally for good reason,
because they are the same size there isn't much inequity in this
relationship. Two large ISPs may wish to do the same. However, a small ISP
who wants its traffic carried by a large ISP (i.e. peer with them) may have
little choice but to pay for this traffic to be carried: so becomes a
That way you have a hierarchy as follows:
Bacbkbone providers who may peer with each other
Large regional providers who are customers of the backbone providers (so by
DS-3s or whatever from BBNplanet, UUnet) and who may peer regionally. While
also present at bix exchanges, they are unlikely to peer with the big
six/seven/eight but may well peer with foreign ISPs at those exchanges.
Azeem Azhar vx: 0171-830 7133
The Economist fx: 0171-839 2968
25 St James's Street London SW1A 1HG