[163835] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Wed Jun 19 22:22:26 2013
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:21:57 -0400
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <EAC71D47-B10D-406B-A422-FBE3C27DF1E2@ufp.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in system that existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer really makes any sense.
>
> While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric routing, your theory is based on the idea that a content site exists in one location, and does not want to optimize the user experience.
> ...
>
> A much better business arrangement would be to tie a sliding fee to the ratio. Peering up to 2:1 is free. Up to 4:1 is $0.50/meg, up to 6:1 is $1.00/meg, up to 10:1 is $1.50 a meg. Eyeball network gets to recover their long haul transport costs, it's cheaper to the CDN than buying transit,
Agreed that CDN, traffic steering, etc, changes the impact of routing
protocols. But I think you made my point. The sending peer (or their
customer) has more control over cost. And we don't really have a good
proxy for evaluating relative burdens.
That's not to suggest that peering disputes are really about technical
capabilities. Nor fairness, even...
Cheers,
-Benson
