[171893] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Fri May 16 03:15:31 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 02:19:39 -0400
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <344c9be20b124b9bbf35ea9e55476a52@STCOEX01.stargate.local>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 14-05-15 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:
> As primarily an eyeball network with a token (8000 quoted) number of transit customers it does not seem reasonable for them to expect balanced ratios on peering links.
Pardon my ignorance here, but isn't there a massive difference between
settlement-free peering between large transit providers at the core
which happens with balanced traffic,
and some free peering at local exchanges at the edge where there is no
expectation of balanced traffic, just an oppportunity to exchange
traffic without using transit capacity. (isn't that how CDN nodes in a
exchange works ? Lets ISPs connect to it and bypass transit links to
save money ?
Seems to me like the word "peering" shouldn't have been used to denote
relationships at the core between the big guys if it is also used at the
edge for a fairly different purpose.
