[38272] in North American Network Operators' Group
Limited peering battle (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Sat Jun 2 03:52:41 2001
Date: 2 Jun 2001 00:52:06 -0700
Message-ID: <20010602075206.25984.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, Mike Leber wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > 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?
>
> You have the cart before the horse (effect before cause), there are really
> two principles that come before the example policy effect above. They are
> truisms.
I understand that, however my interest was much more limited than launching
an incindary device into another peering battle.
I'm want to understand why a 1.5:1, or 2:1 balance is required. What
technical purpose does it achieve.
I've asked folks from large and small providers about this, and they've
told me a variety of reasons. But none of the reasons, so far, have held
technical merit in the final analysis. There were always alternatives
which did not require maintaining a inverse market share balance between
providers.
ANS used to require cold potato routing, is it time to bring it back?
I know, provider-based CIDR makes that difficult.
