North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: AOL & Cogent
- From: Deepak Jain
- Date: Fri Dec 20 17:12:24 2002
Further, if L3/Cogent are settlement-free and both parties are interested in
growing the size of their peering connections, wouldn't it make better sense
for Cogent all-around? If AOL is not interested in settlement-free peering
with them, then AOL can pay to get to them.
I seem to remember some old rule of thumb that basically said anyone who
peers with your upstream/transit provider is probably makes sense for you to
peer with (because you are otherwise paying to reach them).
I thought *THAT* was the point of peering vs transit for networks that are
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Andrew Partan
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:47 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: AOL & Cogent
> I was poking around to see what was happening with Cogent and AOL
> and ran into some interesting info.
> The test that Cogent failed was a 2:1 ratio; Cogent was at 3:1 and
> AOL insisted they be at no more than 2:1 for free peering.
> AOL wants Cogent to pay for peering - the pricing I've heard is
> $50-/meg for paid peering - which I think is more than street price
> for transit...
> Hmm; I wonder if this change in policy has anything to do with John
> Schanz's recent move from Sprint to AOL?