Based on the models I've run, the cost of peering should work out
to a charge based on the cost of transit/ratio of customer networks/
non customer networks for the "larger ISP", i.e.:
ISP A charges 60,000/month for a DS3, say the
announce as customers 20% of global routeable IP, thus
peering charges should be about 1/5 of that $60,000, or
$12,000. Assuming ISP B charges $2000/month for a T-1, and announcies
about .1% of global routeable IP space, or $2/month. So net
cash flow between A and B is about $11,998/month. This doesn't
include local loop charges, port charges, or the issue of different
network design may result in different costs of peering.
If the provider charges $20,000/month for DS3, then somewhere on
the order of $4000/month would be a reasonable peering charge.
At some point charges between differently sized networks will happen
as the cost structures have to be balanced or it will not be
viable in the long run. However that doesn't meen that NDAs and
outrages peering charges are justifable. And if people
use an exchange point and a route server, the costs of peering for
large national providers could be reduced, and provide their
customers better service, and be compensated for their real costs
to do peering.
All of the information to do the cost calculations is publicly
available information, and unless some large ISPs are not being
held to the same 80% utilization standard, (AGIS anyone?), then
there isn't any real market distortion by using routable IP addresses.
And its a lot easier than counting aggregate packet flows.
If worse comes to worse, some large national provider will institute
a policy similar and the rest will face the Net99/CIX scenario all over again.