[163891] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 20 17:38:38 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130620203956.GV55976@burnout.tpb.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:32:55 +0200
To: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=3Dnanog@bakker.net> =
wrote:
> * 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:
>=20
>>> 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."
>=20
> You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets =
going in and out.
They are roughly equal (modulo delayed acks, etc.). However, the number =
of octets is very different from the number of packets. There is much =
greater asymmetry in number of octets than in number of packets.
To the best of my knowledge, most (if not all) of the peering agreements =
that discuss traffic ratios do so in terms of data transferred, not =
number of datagrams.
Owen
