[109105] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jasper Bryant-Greene)
Wed Nov 5 06:15:34 2008
From: Jasper Bryant-Greene <jasper@unleash.co.nz>
To: Mark Foster <blakjak@blakjak.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0811052214160.13577@maverick.blakjak.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:14:06 +1300
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Isn't it because the receiver is more likely to backhaul the traffic
further, due to hot-potato routing - at least in the case of large
networks with multiple points of interconnect?
-jasper
On 5/11/2008, at 10:15 PM, Mark Foster <blakjak@blakjak.net> wrote:
> I'm sure someone else must've seen it before.
>
> Surely even assymetric peering agreements are mutually beneficial...
> ISPs are also content providers, either directly or through their
> customers... peering is going to have a flow-on effect in terms of
> reducing the cost of offering content to the people you peer with
> too, right?
>
> Why all the focus on even or non-even-ness of up/down ratios in the
> first place?
>
> Mark.
>
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Mike Lyon wrote:
>
>> Those with bad or uneven ratios then purchase transit and don't let
>> themselves get depeered...
>>
>> On 11/1/08, Nelson Lai <nelson.lai@indiatimes.com> wrote:
>>> What I mean is, how come networks like Teleglobe, Limelight, etc.
>>> don't get
>>> depeered by others, but Cogent does? I'm sure Cogent isn't the
>>> only one with
>>> bad ratios.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hyundai to launch the i20 in India. Catch the exclusive preview on
>>> ZigWheels.com
>>> http://www.zigwheels.com/b2cam/newsDetails.action?name=Emb11_20080731&path=/INDT/News/Emb11_20080731&page=1&pagecount=2&utm_source=indmail&utm_medium=footer&utm_content=tracking&utm_campaign=Nletter_07oct2008_ZW
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile device
>>
>>
>
