[28232] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Table Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Borchers)
Fri Apr 21 11:24:02 2000
Message-Id: <200004211524.LAA00283@ns2.harpweek.com>
From: "Mark Borchers" <markb@infi.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:21:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
In-reply-to: <4.2.2.20000420013232.00b766f0@mail.ianai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
You omitted the fact that the 1500 byte packets carry a bunch
of paid advertising, and thus are already revenue-producing.
On 20 Apr 00, at 1:42, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
> 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.
<snipped for brevity>
> 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.
