[171979] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun May 18 17:50:31 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rya_K9c6DFrWq2y6vfHYR3x=2ViMeBjL++8KZo=CvKdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 11:40:35 -0700
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Traffic Symmetry is a distraction that the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS would like =
us to
focus on.
The reality is that $ACCESS_PROVIDERS want us to focus on that so that =
we don=92t
see what is really going on which is a battle to deeper (or avoid =
increasing peering
capacity with) networks they think they can force to pay them more =
money.
This is an age old tactic and it isn=92t unique to $ACCESS_PROVIDERS. =
The larger
$BACKBONE_PROVIDERS did it in the past, too. The first one was a =
railroad
company turned telecom. Then came the remnants of PSI. Today, it=92s the =
largest
$ACCESS_PROVIDERS. Usually, this just results in harm to both sides and
eventually a loss of subscribers. The $ACCESS_PROVIDERS have an =
advantage
in the latter as they mostly avoid loss of subscribers through the fact =
that the
subscribers don=92t have anywhere else that they can usefully go.
Owen
On May 16, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> =
wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> 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
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly
>> germaine to the conversation at hand.
>>=20
>>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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. :(
>=20
> Matt
