[38523] in North American Network Operators' Group
Why so little traffic from C&W
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Wed Jun 6 16:03:14 2001
Date: 6 Jun 2001 13:01:17 -0700
Message-ID: <20010606200117.16760.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
Why does C&W have so little traffic? Can't C&W generate more traffic
to send out of their network? Or have most of the big traffic sources
moved off of C&W to other places, such as Exodus?
Several folks have sent me private mail all commenting that C&W's transit
and peering traffic with them is down, although C&W claims overall their
traffic volume is up.
It takes two parties to maintain an exchange ratio. It appears C&W wasn't
doing its part either.
"Couser said each of C&W's peering partners must meet three requirements:
they must have an OC-48 backbone, be able to maintain an exchange ratio
of 2 to 1, and have nodes in nine regions. The exchange ratio with PSINet
was 3 to 1, Couser said.
"It's equitable as long as you're sending me the same amount," Couser
said. "When you're sending someone more traffic than they're sending us,
you're essentially giving them free access."
PSI spent a lot of money over the last few years (perhaps more than C&W
spent), which may also be why PSI is in financial trouble. In the cable
TV industry, cable companies must pay for content (e.g. cable companies
pay CNN for the privilege of transmitting CNN on their network). Since
PSI has more content than C&W (as evidence by the imbalance), why shouldn't
C&W have to compensate PSI for its content just like the cable companies?
