[163863] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Thu Jun 20 10:59:11 2013
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <-5367783170688464759@unknownmsgid>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:58:01 -0700
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Cc: 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 5:37 AM, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> =
wrote:
> 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.
In that case, it's essentially never an issue, since essentially every =
packet in one direction is balanced by a packet in the other direction, =
so rotational symmetry takes care of the "fairness." I think you may be =
taking your argument too far, though, since by this logic, the sending =
and receiving networks also have control over what they choose to =
transit and receive, and I think that discounts too far the reality that =
it is in fact the _customers_ that are making all of these decisions, =
and the networks are, in the aggregate, inflexible in their need to =
service customers. What a customer will pay to do, a service provider =
will take money to perform. It's not really service providers (in =
aggregate) making these decisions. It's customers.
-Bill
