[163832] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: net neutrality and peering wars continue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Siegel, David)
Wed Jun 19 20:27:21 2013
From: "Siegel, David" <David.Siegel@Level3.com>
To: Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org>, Dorian Kim <dorian@blackrose.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:26:56 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20130620000249.GA32794@wakko.typo.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi Wayne,
Another important point not to be missed is that these days, thanks to CDN =
technology, a heavy inbound ratio does not necessarily indicate a high cos=
t burden like it did pre-CDN tech. Even more ironically, the unwillingness=
of a peer to upgrade connections due to the ratio excuse results in the CD=
N having to source traffic from non-optimal locations just to get the bits =
into the other network, thereby increasing the cost burden of the broadband=
network.
If it were true that these issues were only about cost there would be plent=
y of common ground to negotiate acceptable peering terms, don't you think?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne E Bouchard [mailto:web@typo.org]=20
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:03 PM
To: Dorian Kim
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:44:15PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >=20
> > On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> >=20
> > > as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story,=20
> > > some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life,=20
> > > seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, hig=
genbottom's point.
> >=20
> > I agree with Randy, but will go one further.
> >=20
> > Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incenti=
vizes your competitors to compete in your home market.
> >=20
> > You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements? You go in=
to the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creatin=
g one.
> >=20
> > Google Fiber, anyone?
> >=20
> > Having a requirement that's basically "you must compete with me on all =
the products I sell" is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the bi=
g guys use ratio.
>=20
> At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business=20
> models and the reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public=20
> policy interest is due to the wide spread legacy of monopoly driven=20
> public investment in the last mile infrastructure.
>=20
> -dorian
At the risk of inflaming passions, I'll share my opinion on this whole topi=
c and then disappear back into my cubicle.
For my part, peering ratios never made sense anyway except in the pure tran=
sit world. I mean, content providers are being punished by eyeball networks=
because the traffic is one way. Well, DUH! But everyone overlooks two simp=
le facts: 1) Web pages don't generate traffic, users do. Content sits there=
taking up disk space until a user comes to grab it. (Not quite the case wi=
th data miners such as Google, but you get the idea.) 2) Users would not ge=
nerate traffic unless there were content they want to access. Whether that =
is web pages, commerce pages such as Amazon or ebay, streams, or peer-to-pe=
er game traffic, if there's nothing interesting, there's nothing happening.=
So both sides have an equal claim to "it's all your fault" and one seeking=
to punish the other is completely moronic.
Traffic interchange is good. Period. It puts the users closer to the conten=
t and the content closer to the user and everyone wins. So I never once und=
erstood why everyone was all fired up about ratios. It just never made any =
sense to me from the get-go. To have government get into this will certainl=
y not help the problem, it will just make it a hundred times worse. Remembe=
r the old saying that the eight most terrifying words in the English langua=
ge are, "I'm from the government. I'm here to help." and boy will they try =
to "help". You'll be lucky if you as a company can keep still your doors op=
en after they get done "helping" you.
Anyhow, just my two bits.
-Wayne
---
Wayne Bouchard
web@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/
