[187653] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PCH Peering Paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Feb 17 17:47:32 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <83521751-AA40-49CF-91C6-FF92A41C7342@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:47:28 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> The premise above therefore devolves to: Since most of the traffic is =
to those networks, then most of the bits flow over contracted peerings.
>>=20
>> Perhaps =E2=80=9Cmost=E2=80=9D can be argued, but obviously a =
significant portion of all peering bits flow over contracted sessions. =
Hopefully we can all agree on that.
>=20
> There=E2=80=99s greater complexity here, however=E2=80=A6
>=20
> Many of the bits that flow flow over several networks between their =
source and destination. Likely the vast majority of bits traverse at =
least 3 autonomous systems in the process.
>=20
> So when you want to count traffic that went over a non-contract =
peering session vs. traffic that went over a contract peering session, =
how do you count traffic that traverses some of each?
Lower in my post:
On Feb 16, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> =
wrote:
> I guess you could say the bits sent over transit will eventually hit a =
contracted peering session, since the people in the core contract their =
sessions. But does that matter to the small guys?
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
