[132655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Nov 29 23:51:10 2010
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CF4389C.2000801@rollernet.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:47:10 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Seth Mattinen 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.
Ratios were an excuse used by GTEi to try and force Exodus, Above.Net, =
and Global Center to pay for peering back in 1998. It had a valid, =
technical reason behind it - the cost of bit-miles.[*] Unfortunately, =
most people have forgotten this and simply claim one side is more =
'valuable' than the other. In reality, the "value" of a relationship is =
NOT related to the number of bits flowing in either direction.
More importantly, today large content providers & CDNs either carry the =
traffic longer, or deliver it close to the user, so the bit-mile =
argument is invalid. (For smaller providers, especially single-location =
hosting providers, the argument still holds.) But people do not =
actually care why ratios were originally brought up, ratios are simply =
used as a reason to bludgeon other providers into paying.
Not that it ever mattered. Business relationships are not predicated on =
equal value. You do not refuse to buy copier paper unless the paper =
provider proves that he is not making more money off selling you paper =
than you are making off using the paper. You may go to the next =
provider who sells paper, but if they all make more than you do, you =
don't decide to go without. You buy paper and run your business.
Peering is a business relationship. If your company can make more or =
spend less by peering with another company, you should do it. If you do =
not consummate that relationship, you are hurting your business. This =
should be the only reason to peer or not peer.
Of course, some people will tell you there is an opportunity cost. =
Perhaps other networks would have bought from you for far more than you =
will save by peering this one network, and if you do peer those networks =
will expect it for free. This may a valid point, for a very limited set =
of providers negotiating with a very limited set of customers. The vast =
majority of the time, it is complete BS. Mostly that is just someone's =
ego talking, not a true business decision.
Unfortunately, too many business decisions (not just on the Internet) =
are made for reasons more to do with ego than dollars. Which is a =
shame. The Internet is a business, and we would all do better to treat =
it as such.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
[*] 10 second explanation for those who do not understand: I hand you a =
small HTTP GET request, you carry it across the country. You had me a =
1500 byte web page, I carry it across the country. My costs are much =
higher than yours, you need to compensate me for the additional costs.
BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus & Global Center to =
agree to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the =
rest is history.
