[152548] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Mangin)
Wed May 2 04:59:13 2012
From: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4FA0C0CF.1010905@axu.tm>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:58:31 +0100
To: Aleksi Suhonen <nanog-poster@axu.tm>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I (in the UK) had the same letter from LLNW yesterday, word for word.=20
When the peering was established, I had transit providers with strict =
peering policy (TATA/L3), now I have two with more open policy (HE/KPN). =
I assume LLNW now sees me via what is for them a peer, and see no =
financial reason to keep a direct session up.
However I must say that the wording of their letter is appalling. Even =
if they gave me 30 days notice to change my transit arrangement and did =
not terminate the session without warning, the tone of this mail is =
simply wrong. I am pretty sure my transit providers are seeing them via =
the same exchanges I do, so the traffic did, most likely, not even shift =
from interface. We did not have any issues of capacity and/or outage, so =
it is not that this change will save them much in opex costs neither. My =
peering ports are the same size as my transit ports, so they have gained =
anything in performance by shifting the traffic (and as I do not =
congest, did not loose anything neither though)
What it tells me is that they do not care about my business and prefer =
to force me to pay to reach their network (more than I was previously) =
via transit ... or pay more but less than transit using their "generous" =
pay peering offer .. I did not bother asking them what the cost was, my =
answer is NO. I will prefer to pay my transit provider, at least the =
extra capacity can be put to other use.
If ever I change back my transit provider to one they do not have =
favourable agreement with, I will think twice about peering again with =
them, or I may ask them for some pay peering to reflect their saving =
(no, I would not I am not that kind of scumbag).
As my traffic volume is clearly noise for them, I am sure they do not =
care at all. However, large rivers are all made of small streams, and =
all trees starts as seeds ( I am feeling zen this morning ... :D )
Thomas
I am glad they are spending ton of money to upgrade their =
infrastructure.. but so am I.
On 2 May 2012, at 06:06, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
> Morning,
>=20
> I have no idea what's really going on at LLNW, but I thought I'd still =
share an alternative view on this matter:
>=20
> My understanding is that LLNW is spending tons of money to upgrade =
some of their IXP connections to 100GbE in Europe. With that in mind, =
I'm not that surprised if they wish to get some new income to cover =
those costs. While content is king, eye balls are kings too. Go figure.
>=20
> --=20
> Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy
> Internetworking Consulting
> Cellular: +358 45 670 2048
> World Wide Web: www.axu.tm
>=20
