On Thu, March 29, 2007 11:29, Matthew Poole wrote:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/EA57668828E0FEEFCC2572AC0070D766
"While emphasing that it's still early days for the proposal and details need to be worked out, Marshall says providers would pay for circuits into Telecom's network, and the incumbent would reciprocate for connections towards providers."
How is this an improvement on the current situation? They're not making use of existing peering infrastructure, they're just making other providers pay for a (Telecom-supplied) connection into Telecom's network, which is an option that's always been available to anyone willing to spend the money. Here's hoping that they get told that anything less than true neutral peering isn't good enough.
what is your definition of "neutral peering" in this case? someone always has to pay for the circuit/cross-connect...when Level(3) and Sprint peer with one another, it isn't via a shared/public VLAN at Equinix/PAIX/etc, it will be via a private circuit (or cross-connect in an IX) where they share costs: (3) pays for the first cross-connect, Sprint the next, rinse, repeat. settlement-free interconnect is never free (as in beer), there is always CAPEX/OPEX involved (hardware, MRC, power, NOC, etc). /joshua -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams -