[171930] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Fri May 16 14:57:55 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <53765D59.50406@ispn.net>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 14:52:31 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
> in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP
> to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering
> ratios to be symmetric
is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about
offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be
1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the
traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into
some horrific location(s) to access the content in question.
Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly
germaine to the conversation at hand.
