[132614] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Mon Nov 29 19:01:33 2010
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:59:57 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4CF4389C.2000801@rollernet.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:34:52PM -0800, Seth Mattine=
n wrote:
> My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as
> long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic
> exchanged. If it becomes wildly lopsided in one direction, then it
> becomes more like paying for transit.
When you have users and no content how can the traffic be equal?
When you have content and no users how can the traffic be equal?
Ratio is horribly outdated. Cable and DSL providers enforce out
of ratio at the edge with technology and policy. My cable modem
is 8 down 2 up, yet my traffic profile is supposed to be equal? I
can't host any "servers" by my TOS, but aggregated up the ratio is
supposed to be 1:1?
No one will ever be in ratio compliance with an eyeball dominant
network. Ever. Period. It's not possible via technology and
TOS. Enforcing it as an eyeball network just forces content providers
to aquire eyeballs, e.g. compete with you. That's bad business.
But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem. Peering
spats like this are ego problems. It's one VP/SVP/CTO/CFO deciding
that "my sandbox is more important than your sandbox", or "I'm going
to get revenue even if the world hates me for it and I'm going to
burn all my bridges in the process." If they actually wanted to
equalize the costs, they could do that. Decide on better peering
locations, use cold potato routing, locate caching/cdn things inside
the other network, etc.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD)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=K+sw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--
