[152500] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ameen Pishdadi)
Tue May 1 13:35:21 2012
In-Reply-To: <A6E26D92FF58FD4EBFE18A27C0780F99023711AE@EXCH-DTM-01.ops.rrbone.net>
From: Ameen Pishdadi <apishdadi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:36:21 -0500
To: Dominik Bay <db@rrbone.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Right on
Thanks,
Ameen Pishdadi
On May 1, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Dominik Bay <db@rrbone.net> wrote:
> Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN:
>=20
> ---->8----
> Greetings,
>=20
> Limelight Networks periodically reviews its interconnection strategy to en=
sure the quality and integrity of its interconnection between all its partne=
rs. We have recently updated our requirements for settlement-free peering wh=
ich are posted at http://www.as22822.net/
>=20
> This letter is to notify you that yyy no longer meets our minimum requirem=
ents. If yyy would like to maintain our current interconnectivity, there wil=
l be settlement associated with doing so. If you are interested in pursuing t=
his option, please reply back to this email indicating such.
>=20
> Should your company decline this option, or if we do not have an agreement=
regarding the settlement in place prior to May 31st 2012, Limelight Network=
s will terminate the peering sessions on that day, with this letter serving a=
s 30 day notice.
>=20
>=20
> Sincerely,
> ----8<----
>=20
> The same mail was sent out last year, about end of April 2011, to another I=
SP I'm working with.
> They got depeered, but the ISP which received the mail above yesterday did=
n't meet the requirements last year either.
> I totally understand that some companies might not be able to handle sub-5=
Mbps peering sessions, be it technical or organisational, but >=3D100Mbps sh=
ould be worth any effort, as long as it improves the network.
>=20
> In this particular case I'm talking about >=3D600Mbps of traffic send out b=
y Limelight to "my" eyeballs, not mentioning their fairly small footprint in=
Germany in comparison to other CDNs.
>=20
> These points aside, we are talking about a Content *Delivery* Network here=
. There are CDNs out there who burn to improve their customer experience (bo=
th the content creators and the content receiver) at high cost.
> Having a Tier1 attitude and telling eyeball networks with <1Gbps of traffi=
c exchanged to bugger off or pay is not one of the ways to improve this.
>=20
> At the end of the day I'm going to charge CDNs who want to deliver their c=
ustomers content to my eyeballs and make me pay (about 2USD per Mbps, with a=
minimum of 1Gbps).
>=20
> -dominik
>=20
