[163884] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Thu Jun 20 16:42:03 2013
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:39:56 +0200
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <EEF425F2-8C07-40CE-BD19-D33EBF252499@pch.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
* woody@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) [Thu 20 Jun 2013, 16:59 CEST]:
>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."
You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets
going in and out.
>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.
I think the point is here that networks are nudging these decisions by
making certain services suck more than others by way of preferential
network access.
-- Niels.
