[28209] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Table Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (I Am Not An Isp)
Thu Apr 20 04:46:38 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000420013232.00b766f0@mail.ianai.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:42:30 -0700
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: I Am Not An Isp <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004200056390.11383-100000@workhorse.iMach.c
om>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 01:18 AM 4/20/00 -0600, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
>But that isn't the case. We live in a world where both the hosters and
>the accessors are paying for their access. Any settlement based in that
>system will be unfair as it is almost impossible to put a different value
>on each end of the link. Who's to say for a given AS whether inbound or
>outbound is more important?
It is not "inbound" or "outbound" per se, it is the amount of traffic and
how far you have to carry it.
Simplistic example: Network A hosts big web sites. Network B has a
gazillion dial-up users. The two networks peer at MAE-East and
MAE-West. The web sites are in San Jose, the dial-up users are in DC.
Typical TCP flow looks like this: 1500 byte packet goes from web server to
MAE-West on Network A, then transfers to Network B (because of "hot potato"
routing) and comes across the country to DC destined for dialup user. Then
a 64 byte ACK goes from DC to MAE-East on Network B, then transfers to
Network A where it rides to San Jose.
In Other Words: Network B is carrying 1500 byte packets 3000 miles, and
Network A is carrying 64 byte packets 3000 miles.
Sounds to me like an objective, technical reason to require one network to
pay another even if they are just "peering". (Unless you are Randy, in
which case one is now a "customer" of the other.)
Another solution would be to have Network A agree to carry the packet
cross-country, relieving Network B of the need to carry big packets long
distances. However, that requires useful Network B to give Network A
useful MEDs.
Or maybe a bazillion other possible solutions.
In summary, there is nothing wrong with settlements to help off-set unequal
network costs. It is a perfectly valid business practice. Nor, IMHO, does
it make one network a "customer" of the other. The two networks are just
trying to share everything equally, including network costs.
>- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) KD7EHZ
TTFN,
patrick
--
I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net
ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
"Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
(Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)
