Russell Nelson wrote: >We've all gotten so used to having to buy Internet access that none of >us are thinking about the possibility of peering with a provider. >That is, exchanging packets for free. Peering isn't done so very much >anymore because the backbone providers have gotten so big that they >don't *need* to peer with anybody but themselves anymore. In fact, >the peering agreements are hush-hush proprietary. > During these trying financial times, most major Tier 1 ISPs no longer peer or provide transit for free. The big players like UUNet have an almost outrageous peering policy. See http://www.uu.net/peering/ for more details. When I say outrageous, I mean so in a way that your almost have to be another Tier 1 ISP in order to peer.
Some Tier 1s that provided peering to government agencies also provided transit, in the past. This is no longer the case anymore. Most ISPs want to be paid. >But imagine the case where people run popular servers out of their >homes over this wireless network. One of these servers is *so* >popular that it serves as a driver of traffic -- e.g. a Slashdot. It >causes other people to want faster links just so they can get access >to this server. This is something that other providers want to have >connecting to their network. Such is the stuff of which peering >agreements are made. > Should running high-volume servers be discouraged on a wireless access network? I would think that a high-volume systems on a mobile/portable access network should not be allowed. It makes sense to me to build a layer 2 wireless network (as suggested by another's email in this thread), and have that network attach at a few point to the public Internet for transit. Instead of each access point terminating at a DSL/CABLE/T1 point, by not use some APs as repeaters to the APs that have points on the public Internet? Just my $0.02... Dave Hartzell -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
