[152505] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue May 1 14:10:19 2012
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXKigR+t=gMhzd2z_Who6vTa9yWZt=0=tt16PkMF-RHKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:08:24 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote:
> On 5/1/12, Dominik Bay <db@rrbone.net> wrote:
>> Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN:
>>=20
>> ---->8----
>> Greetings,
>>=20
>> Limelight Networks [has] recently updated our requirements for
>> settlement-free peering
I love the fact Dominik says "from a CDN", then leaves Limelight's name =
in the text. :)
> If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router
> and pay you for the staff hours to set it up, there should be *no*
> situation in which I'm willing to accept your traffic from an upstream
> Internet link but am unwilling to engage in otherwise settlement-free
> peering with you.
I disagree with this. In fact, I can think of several possible cases =
where this would not hold, both using pure business and pure technical =
justifications.
Generalizations are difficult in complex situations, and this is most =
definitely a complex situation.
> Your customers have paid you to connect to me and my customers have
> paid me to connect to you. Double-billing the activity by either of us
> collecting money from the other is just plain wrong.
Wrong? My rule is: Your network, your decision. (Anyone who is paying =
attention knows my decision, but I it would be quite silly to assume my =
decision is right for all networks in all situations.) Asking for =
settlements is not illegal, or even immoral. Moreover, this is an =
operational list. "Right" and "wrong" are not really part of the =
discussion.
But even if they were, this is not not "just plain wrong". "It's just =
business" is a much better way to say it, and in business, trying to =
make more money is the _point_, not wrong. Whether this is a good way =
to make money is left as an exercise to the reader.
Instead, let's focus on the operational impact. Will the reduced =
complexity on these networks result in improved performance? Irrelevant =
to performance? Decreased performance? Maybe even whether that change =
in performance is an acceptable trade for the lower CapEx/OpEx? This is =
relevant since business requirements are the foundation for operational =
discussions. Can't buy more 10G ports if the business doesn't support =
it.
Etc., etc.
But right vs. wrong in a peering dispute? I think not.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
