On Feb 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, virendra rode wrote:

> I understand this is not true peering relationship, however its an
> interesting way to obtain exchange point routes and I understand this is
> nothing new.

<mini-rant>

I've found people who use the term 'peering' to mean something different than 
what I personally interpret it to mean.

eg: "We have peering with 4 carriers at our colocation facility where you can 
place gear"

Translation: We have blended IP transit from 4 carriers, or you can directly 
connect to them as needed.

I understand why they call it this, because "I configured peering with 
Level3/Cogent" on my router, etc.  The difference is in the policy.  What 
you're speaking of is someone selling transit, which is perfectly fine over 
various IXes, you generally are prohibited from 'selling next-hop', i.e.: you 
have to bear the cost on the IX port of the forwarding.

</mini-rant>

Buying transit isn't as dirty as people think it is, sometimes its the right 
business decision.  If you connect to an IX for $4000/mo at gig-e, you might as 
well buy transit at $4/meg on that same port IMHO.  You're unlikely to be using 
the port at 100% anyways at the IX, so your cost-per-meg there needs to 
properly reflect your 95% or whatnot.

- Jared

Reply via email to