[38527] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New peering criteria
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Wed Jun 6 16:45:07 2001
Date: 6 Jun 2001 13:44:33 -0700
Message-ID: <20010606204433.11982.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 Wed, 06 June 2001, Vijay Gill wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> > If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll
> > terminate the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll
> > fight to keep it in place.
>
> If it will hurt you more than it will hurt them, then you aren't a really
> a "peer", and in that case, the disparity is resolved by the use of a
> service contract whereby you pay them money in exchange for connectivity.
I agree, but how do you decide who is hurt more?
And therefore who should be the vendor and who is the customer?
Is the "bigger" network always the vendor, or is the network with more
content the vendor, or the network with more eyeballs the vendor? That's
what I don't understand about the "balance" requirement. Ok, so you know
the traffic is imbalanced, but whose fault/hurt is it when traffic is
imbalanced? And who is responsible for "fixing" the imbalance in traffic?
The simple answer is I'm the vendor and you are the customer, so you should
pay me.
The more difficult answer is one side turns off the connection (C&W) and
the first side to blink is the customer (C&W). If C&W didn't feel any
pain, why would they turn the peering sessions back on?
