[133160] in North American Network Operators' Group
Ratios & peering [was: The scale of streaming video on the Internet.]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sun Dec 5 17:15:57 2010
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin51AYyJhkuzXnfoE-AwJSqa2eg19rSV52nKeZC@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:15:00 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 4, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
>> - Ratio needs to be dropped from all peering policies. It made sense
>> back when the traffic was two people e-mailing each other. It was
>> a measure of "equal value". However the net has evolved. In the
>> face of streaming audio and video, or rich multimedia web sites
>> Content->User will always be wildly out of ratio. It has moved from
>> a useful measure, to an excuse to make Content pay in all
>> circumstances.
>=20
> I think that's the key point here - ratios make sense when similar
> types of carriers are peering with each other, whether that's
> traditional Tier 1s or small carriers or whatever; they don't make
> sense when an eyeball network is connecting to a content-provider
> network.
Ratios either make sense, or they don't. I don't see how "type of =
network" fits into it. If you are a restaurant, you do not decide =
whether or not to charge customer for food based on whether or not they =
work at another restaurant. If your are eyeball and content wants to =
peer with you, make a decision based on your costs and profits.
Ratios are a proxy for real cost / benefit. As Leo mentioned (and Bill =
snipped), if $LARGE_CONTENT has a single location and $LARGE_EYEBALL has =
to carry it all over the country, the ratio "matters" supposedly because =
large eyeball has to carry those bits everywhere. The implicit =
statement here is that large content gives a rats ass about large =
eyeball's costs.
Repeat after me: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR COSTS. What's more, you don't =
care about mine. If cisco says "well, I know the Juniper has the same =
features and is cheaper, but my costs are higher!", do you then buy the =
cisco? HELL NO. The other person's costs are irrelevant to your =
decision.
If large eyeball finds it cheaper to pay $LARGE_TRANSIT for those bits, =
perhaps because eyeball can make transit carry the bits to a local hub, =
then eyeball should not peer. If eyeball would actually pay more to =
transit than carrying the bits from content's single location, yet still =
does not peer, then eyeball's peering manager should be fired. You cost =
my company money to boost your ego, you're out on your ass.
Of course, I am glossing over the idea that eyeball could pay transit a =
short while to see if he can get a concession out of content. Maybe =
eyeball assumes content has transit costs as well, so eyeball thinks he =
can force content to pay something. This is probably where the idea of =
"similar value" popped into the peering lexicon. But that is standard =
business negotiations, and honestly has nothing to do with similar =
value. In reality, content & eyeball have no idea of the other's true =
costs (probably not even the $/Mbps they pay for transit), so the idea =
of coming to a "similar value" agreement is ludicrous.
Make the decisions that are best for your company. Not best for your =
ego.
Remember people, the Internet is a business. Peering is a business =
tool, not some playground where teacher is enforcing some notion of =
fairness.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
P.S. I'm ignoring the idea of "if we give it away free to one, everyone =
will want it free". Trust me, they all want it "free" anyway. And =
saying "you gave it to him for free!" sounds more like that schoolyard =
than a business negotiation. Besides, if you come to me and say "this =
other network got $FOO", I will tell you I couldn't possibly talk about =
that under NDA, their deal is irrelevant to our deal, and each deal is =
far too unique to be compared. Then bitch at the other network for =
breaking our NDA. Breaking NDAs is bad, mmmmm-KAY?
