[171934] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Petach)
Fri May 16 15:19:43 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaX1CPZVwwokcx1wFeW_zSWFx16SFydxSRq5vD-msDgXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:15:15 -0700
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Traffic asymmetry across peering connections
was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg,
if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic
went asymmetric, the refusals to augment
capacity kicked in, and congestion became
a problem.
I've seen the same thing; pretty much every
rejection is based on ratio issues, even when
offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the
home market for the users.
If the refusals hinged on any other clause
of the peering requirements, you'd be right;
but at the moment, that's the flag networks
are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour.
So, it may be very "1990", but unfortunately
that seems to be the year many people in
the industry are mentally stuck in. :(
Matt
