[133814] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Fri Dec 17 12:27:54 2010
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <201012171723.oBHHNt0l034446@aurora.sol.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:28:09 -0600
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> How effective have variations on hot potato routing been, =
historically?
> I seem to recall Cogent made lots of noises early on about how they
> could do hot potato routing to encourage peering, but over the years
> that didn't seem to pan out that way.
I can't comment on Cogent... But, in general: hot-potato reduces =
network costs but doesn't eliminate them--more capacity is still =
required to carry more traffic. The goal is to balance out the cost, =
assuming the traffic is of adequate value (or equal value, ideally) to =
both networks.
Cheers,
-Benson
