[187599] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: PCH Peering Paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Bedard)
Fri Feb 12 19:40:09 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>,
North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:39:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <D2E36A7B.127483%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free peering b=
etween large content providers and eyeball networks there are written agree=
ments in place. I would have no clue on the volume percentage but it's not=
going to be near 99%. =20
Phil
From: Livingood, Jason
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:41 AM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: re: PCH Peering Paper
How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links
but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like
50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up -
could be any percentage.)
Jason
PS - My email address has changed and I=E2=80=99m trying to send a 3rd time=
.
Apologies if they all suddenly post to the list as duplicates! :-)
>On 2/10/16, 6:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Patrick W. Gilmore"
><nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
>
>>I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules,
>>talking about myself.)
>>
>>The paper is:
>> https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2
>>0
>>11.pdf
>>
>>I said =C2=B399.97%=C2=B2 of all peering sessions have nothing behind the=
m more
>>than a =C2=B3handshake=C2=B2 or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Cu=
lpa.
>>
>>The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%.
>>
>>Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better
>>data.
>>
>>--=20
>>TTFN,
>>patrick
>>
>>
>
