[163859] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Thu Jun 20 08:38:17 2013
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEY_OnV32S23u+b+5mjW=nRaCx3Qs_3i+ZZK3S8PkkL9oGzftg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:37:47 -0400
To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:09, Martin Barry <marty@supine.com> wrote:
> On 20 June 2013 13:07, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
>> wrote:
>>> The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost.
>>
>> I'll assume that, by "sending peer," you mean the content network. If so,
>> I disagree. The content network has no control whatsoever over the
>> location of the eyeball customer.
>> ...
> I think his point was that the receiving side can massage their BGP
> announcements all they like but the sending network has more instantaneous
> control over how the traffic will flow. This is before analysis,
> communication, application of policies / contractual arrangements,
> de-peering etc.etc. kick in.
Right. By "sending peer" I meant the network transmitting a packet,
unidirectional flow, or other aggregate of traffic into another
network. I'm not assuming anything about whether they are offering
"content" or something else - I think it would be better to talk about
peering fairness at the network layer, rather than the business /
service layer.
Cheers,
-Benson
