[152534] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jerry Dent)
Tue May 1 17:42:35 2012
In-Reply-To: <20120501205405.GA20997@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:41:59 -0500
From: Jerry Dent <effinjdent@gmail.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:45:29PM -0500, Jerry Dent wrote:
>> Can be for the end users if they wind up on a less direct network path.
>
> "Direct" is not the only measure.
>
> I would take a 4-hop, 10GE, no packet loss path over a 1-hop, 1GE,
> 5% packet loss path any day of the week.
>
> "Shorter" {hops, latency, as-path} does not mean a higher quality end
> user experience.
>
I was using "Direct" as a generic term. And if the issue was link
performance, company A would have sent company B a "shape up or we'll
de-peer" message rather than a "pay up or we'll de-peer" message.
