Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:

> Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow
> between those two ISPs _anyway_.

I believe the events of 2-3 days ago disproves your assertion.


> Therefore, in many cases the only
> ones to profit from them not reaching a peering agreement
> (settlement-free or not) is their upstream(s), who is probably
> delighted to be able to charge them both for the transit traffic.

Again, supposed facts not in evidence.

I mentioned in the thread earlier that it is entirely possible Eyeball  
Network saves money by turning down peering and paying a transit  
provider to deliver the packets where Eyeball Network wants.  Fiber,  
routers, IX ports, engineers, etc. are all expensive.  Transit these  
days is not.

Doesn't mean Eyeball Network actually does save money.  Just means you  
don't know either way.

--
TTFN,
patrick