[38267] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: C&W Peering Problem?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Fri Jun 1 22:28:38 2001
Date: 1 Jun 2001 19:28:03 -0700
Message-ID: <20010602022803.9265.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
X-Sent-From: sean@donelan.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 01 June 2001, Steve Schaefer wrote:
> How is it that UUNet is getting a free ride? The ILEC's customer pays
> for that line every month. (OK, the customer underpays, but the ILEC
> gets to make it up in access charges as part of the regulation process.)
>
> The only reason that the traffic is unbalanced is that the ILEC's wrote
> the rules to favor that traffic arrangement. Too late to whine about it.
Since on the Internet the sender pays for sent traffic, and the receiver
pays for received traffic, I've never understood the argument advanced by
BBN/Genuity, UUNET and now apparently C&W that unbalanced traffic means
someone is getting a free ride.
If the customer pays flat-rate, you collect the same amount of money no
matter how little traffic they send or receive. The 95% charging
used by some providers is the greater of *either* inbound or outbound
traffic. So imbalanced traffic to or from your customers is paid by your
customers.
So, can anyone explain why C&W, UUNET or Genuity care about traffic
balance, other than to limit competition by providers who are better
at attracting particular types of customers than them? If you are good
at being a webhoster, your traffic will have one profile. If you are
good at being an access provider, your traffic will have another profile.
If you are mediocre at everything, I guess your traffic will be balanced.
