[163836] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Siegel, David)
Wed Jun 19 23:42:05 2013
From: "Siegel, David" <David.Siegel@Level3.com>
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:41:14 +0000
In-Reply-To: <51C26745.6010003@queuefull.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have =
a way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics v=
endor is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that =
each party can calculate not only how much traffic they carry for each peer=
, but how far.
Dave
--
520.229.7627 cell
On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:23 PM, "Benson Schliesser" <bensons@queuefull.net> wr=
ote:
>=20
> On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>=20
>> That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in syste=
m that existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer rea=
lly makes any sense.
>>=20
>> 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 locati=
on, and does not want to optimize the user experience.
>> ...
>>=20
>> 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,
>=20
> Agreed that CDN, traffic steering, etc, changes the impact of routing pro=
tocols. 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 eval=
uating relative burdens.
>=20
> That's not to suggest that peering disputes are really about technical ca=
pabilities. Nor fairness, even...
>=20
> Cheers,
> -Benson
>=20
>=20
>=20
