> Deepak Jain wrote: > But that structure doesn't vary vastly if you'd traffic out > that gig via transit vs direct connect. It does vary (and > add lots of infrastructure) if you don't aggregate your > traffic at IXes and instead use loops to bring transit to > you instead of going to it. (say a few 100Mb/s or OC3s in > a few places instead of a GigE at an IX).
Indeed. > Perhaps we should (for technical reasons) describe > peering as "direct connecting". This makes a lot of sense to me (although I would suggest a different name later). Since the beginning I have been trying to make the point that "direct connecting" was typically a no-brainer in terms of money. Peering when you have to buy the local loop is not such a slam dunk. > Business reasons aside, technically the difference is > that with transit you are expecting access via indirect > connections to networks. I'm not so sure about this. There are lots of people that buy transit and are directly connected to their provider in an IX for example. > With peering you expect direct connections into a network. If "direct connecting" != peering then definitely. Maybe we need to say differentiate between: - Connected transit - Remote transit - Connected peering - Remote peering And agree that, by default, transit ~= remote transit peering ~= direct peering Michel.
