Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:36:05 EST, Damien Morton said:
I guess I was picturing a system in which money was used to redress
imbalances between net senders of email and net receivers of email.
That's why I was talking in terms of payment (of some kind) between
servers rather than between end-users. I was imagining a system in which
communicating peers, exchanging equal quantities of mail, would need no
monetary reconciliation. Im assuming that an ISP's or companies' mail
server, barring spam, produces and consumes roughly the same amount of
mail.
Wander over to the NANOG archives, and read up on the *numerous* threads
regarding "peering" versus "transit". There's a lot of very surreal parts
to the saga - companies that won't reveal what their requirements are for
peering except under NDA, companies that had peering requirements so strict
that they wouldn't qualify to peer with themselves, companies that didn't
approach peering/transit purely economically (using peering as some sort of
"mine is bigger than yours" symbol, etc)......
Just what I'm afraid of. Adding 'peering agreements' to the mail
infrastructure would outcast most smaller ISP's, let alone those who
want to run their own mail server. Peering would be a privilege reserved
for the big and powerful, the rest would have to bow to their will. I
think we want to avoid this.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg