[147673] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Sun Dec 18 10:56:58 2011
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka@globaltransit.net>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:55:36 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=r9t1x_NxwWXdScZ_EvTUAAPnDqKLpYbLER-R_M+Z6rvw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: mtinka@globaltransit.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart2005039.vMYiRUFeWX
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sunday, December 18, 2011 12:32:03 AM Matthew Petach=20
wrote:
> I've been able to negotiate peering+transit relationships
> with providers, but only by threat of total revenue loss;
> ie "we currently pay you $x million/year; we want your
> on-net routes as settlement-free routes, and will
> continue to pay for off-net transit traffic. Otherwise,
> we will be transferring all that revenue to your
> competitor, X"
If the customer is taking these on-net routes via an=20
exchange point or private peering arrangement, this should=20
be fairly easy to do.
If they choose to take it over the same link as their off-
net service, not only does the provider need to support a=20
visible way in which these services can be separated over=20
the same wire, but it may also not make much sense for the=20
customer as there is potential for on-net traffic to hog the=20
link, making the case to upgrade the link for traffic that=20
may not necessarily incentivise them to do so. But it's hard=20
to judge this one, especially if the ISP is large with tons=20
of other on-net customers "talking" to the customer=20
negotiating such an arrangement.
I can see ISP's accepting to do this if the ratio of on-
net:off-net traffic is disproportionate, in favor of more=20
off-net traffic.
> This tends to be effective only for
> content providers, though, where the outbound traffic
> dominates,
> and you don't care if the inbound bits are coming
> over the "pay for" pipe vs the "settlement free" pipe.
It's also mostly useful where the ISP is sufficiently large=20
in a meaningful way for their on-net routes to make any=20
sense to the downstream customer negotiating such an=20
agreement.
> If you're an inbound-heavy shop, though, this won't
> really buy you much benefit. (And, if the revenue
> point isn't in the $x millions/year for the transit
> provider, they're more likely to just shrug and say
> "too much hassle...please, go be a headache
> for our competitor" rather than configuring a
> dual relationship like that--so it really only works
> for higher-volume relationships.)
Maybe what you meant to say is "if the revenue point isn't=20
high enough" :-).
Relatively, different ISP's may be kings in their part of=20
town, but still be small enough to accept fewer dollars for=20
such a deal.
On the whole, I can envisage cases where trying to fix this=20
"peering with customers" issue can end up causing=20
inadvertent competition with exchange points.
Mark.
--nextPart2005039.vMYiRUFeWX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)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=n2oG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart2005039.vMYiRUFeWX--
