Further, if L3/Cogent are settlement-free and both parties are interested in growing the size of their peering connections, wouldn't it make better sense for Cogent all-around? If AOL is not interested in settlement-free peering with them, then AOL can pay to get to them.
I seem to remember some old rule of thumb that basically said anyone who peers with your upstream/transit provider is probably makes sense for you to peer with (because you are otherwise paying to reach them). I thought *THAT* was the point of peering vs transit for networks that are not transit-free. Deepak Jain AiNET > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andrew Partan > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: AOL & Cogent > > > > I was poking around to see what was happening with Cogent and AOL > and ran into some interesting info. > > The test that Cogent failed was a 2:1 ratio; Cogent was at 3:1 and > AOL insisted they be at no more than 2:1 for free peering. > > AOL wants Cogent to pay for peering - the pricing I've heard is > $50-/meg for paid peering - which I think is more than street price > for transit... > > Hmm; I wonder if this change in policy has anything to do with John > Schanz's recent move from Sprint to AOL? > --asp >