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
