|> It's the same answer I said when I was standing up at RRG. Providers |> will do whatever they can to attract traffic. They typically don't |> want to say no. The more traffic they attract the more peering they |> can get. And the business opportunities start from there. | |Ok, this is interesting. Not quite as concrete and clear-cut as I had |hoped, but a start. What do others think of this? Is there a way for us |to evaluate whether this is a sufficient incentive?
I'm not quite convinced. Service providers are interested in one thing, being profitable. Their revenues come from their customers. Since running a PTR has clear non-zero costs, the provider should be able to see some offsetting revenue or strategic advantage. The theory proposed above seems based on the fact that providers want to attract traffic. I infer that the thinking here is that more inbound traffic would help offset unfavorable traffic balances, which would be helpful for peering negotiations. In the case of customer traffic approaching a PTR, this would seem to be no different, as the traffic would be arriving at the ISP anyway. Thus, the benefit would seem to be for non-customer traffic. However, for non-customer traffic, the PTR would encapsulate/decapsulate and hairpin the traffic back outside of the provider. In effect, this gives a way for the provider to attract new traffic, both inbound and outbound, and not receive revenue for it. While I can see that it might be of interest to some, I don't see the broad appeal. Real operators should correct me if I'm off base. Tony -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
