<snipped> > > >> > >> How many of you pass packets without getting paid? > > > > in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to > > the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3 > > or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company. > > If I pay you to send my packets and you pay bob to send my packets > then I have paid bob to send my packets. Transitive property of > payment. ;-)
Yes, the transitive property prevails but there are constraints: imagine if Bob were not there to take this "relatively small" payment! Thus if I pay you to send my packets and you pay Bob to send those packets -- then indirectly I have paid Bob an amount which is much less compared to what you would charge me if you had to "build the Bob" yourself -- I am sure you would pass on the costs to me, the end user, especially if there is no such thing as unpaid volunteerism :) The paradox is that the existence of Bob lowers the cost to an end user -- there is some such thing that can be classified as unpaid volunteerism... and yes, being the Bobs, the NANOGers are exhibiting this unpaid volunteerism! > 'Couse bob doesn't pay claire anything but denise pays claire to > receive packets for denise, my packets are intended for denise and bob > and claire have a peering agreement in which they agree to swap > already-paid traffic directly rather than both paying ed to do it for > them. > > So it ain't free and at each step there is a contractual obligation to > at least one of the sender or receiver. > > Regards, > Bill > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > >
