[187655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PCH Peering Paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Feb 17 19:20:07 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <C25B0345-32B2-4EA1-8C18-D6AF111C8B41@pch.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:18:53 -0800
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This assumes that there are no cooperatives providing settlement free =
peering which includes both peer and transit routes.
Owen
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 14:09 , Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>=20
> Each bit traverses only one peering session, however, at the "top of =
its trajectory" to use a physical metaphor. The uphill and downhill =
sides are all transit.
>=20
>=20
> -Bill
>=20
>=20
>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 14:06, 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?
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
