«

In article <bfdpju$ddrfa$>, Jay <> wrote:
>Matthew Poole wrote:
*SNIP*
>I think we need to clarify what "peering" means.
>Does it mean free exchange of traffic or does it just mean exchange
>of traffic.
>
Free exchange of traffic. If you're purchasing connectivity then you're
no longer peering, you're engaging in a carrier/link agreement.

>My definition doesn't care whether traffic is charged for or not.
>Peering is just when ISPs and/or networks exchange traffic.
>
In which case the entire Internet would be a peered network, and it most
certainly is not referred to as such.

>So how is my little packet to get to Southern Cross's link
>if there is no peering anywhere? The moment I connect to that link
>ther *must* be some peering!
>
*SNIP*
No. Someone must be buying transit capacity. That doesn't mean that
there is peering.

--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet

Matthew Poole wrote:

> In article <bfdpju$ddrfa$>, Jay
> <> wrote:
>>Matthew Poole wrote:
> *SNIP*
>>I think we need to clarify what "peering" means.
>>Does it mean free exchange of traffic or does it just mean exchange
>>of traffic.
>>
> Free exchange of traffic. If you're purchasing connectivity then you're
> no longer peering, you're engaging in a carrier/link agreement.

I don't see the need to make a distinction.
Anyhow free peering is dommed to failure. Who is going to pay
for the equipment? Or is that free too?

No wonder broadband never took off in NZ where such idiotic
thinking abounds.

>
>>My definition doesn't care whether traffic is charged for or not.
>>Peering is just when ISPs and/or networks exchange traffic.
>>
> In which case the entire Internet would be a peered network, and it most
> certainly is not referred to as such.
>
>>So how is my little packet to get to Southern Cross's link
>>if there is no peering anywhere? The moment I connect to that link
>>ther *must* be some peering!
>>
> *SNIP*
> No. Someone must be buying transit capacity. That doesn't mean that
> there is peering.
>

Sorry, but you *must* receive packets too. There is absolutely no way
you can have a TCP session without a bidirectional link.

In article <bffa9u$ed7gp$>, Jay <> wrote:
>Matthew Poole wrote:
*SNIP*
>I don't see the need to make a distinction.
Surprise surprise.

>Anyhow free peering is dommed to failure. Who is going to pay
>for the equipment? Or is that free too?
>
All it needs is a switch. In the case of APE, Cisco NZ have kindly
donated low-end switching hardware. WIX's switching equipment is
provided by Citylink.

>No wonder broadband never took off in NZ where such idiotic
>thinking abounds.
>
Broadband has nothing to do with peering.
As for why it never took off, that'd be because the monopoly telco (you
Aussies know all about those) has totally dropped the ball on the
pricing model.

*SNIP*
>Sorry, but you *must* receive packets too. There is absolutely no way
>you can have a TCP session without a bidirectional link.
>
Well congratulations, you're nearly as stupid as you seem to be.
A transit link isn't a uni-directional thing.

--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet