Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.

If, say, ... branched out to Miami, and bought another

    > Alternet ISP T-1 connection out there, they would then be getting free
    > transit between them.

    I don't see that this is a problem. After all, if they bought two
    AlterNet connections, isn't being able to send traffic across AlterNet
    what they're *paying* for?

Hmm. But what about the follwing situation. Two large carriers, P and Q, are
interconnected at multiple sites, among them X and Y. Let's further suppose
carrier P has two customers, C1 and C2, near X and Y respectively.

What's to stop carrier P taking trafic from C1, giving it to Q at X, and
getting it back at Y, and thence taking it to C2? That way, P (presumably)
gets paid for carrying the traffic around, but Q does all the long-haul work.

Yes, P has to pay Q for large enough access pipes, but isn't Q's charging
model assuming that all customers have traffic profiles in which data, on
average, travels approximately equal distances (since I assume it costs more
money to ship 1 Mbit/sec 3K miles than it does 10 miles)? So, if a customer of
Q can arrange to have all their data travel a long way, they can come out
ahead of the game, i.e. with lower cost than actual cost.

If so, I'd assume P can pay Q's access fess, and still come out ahead, which
seems to me to be rather like getting something for nothing... Now, maybe I'm
confused about the true costs?