[47618] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ratios
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Tue May 7 19:44:21 2002
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 00:43:39 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: PETER JANSEN <peter.jansen@cw.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20020507232137.GU375@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0205080040200.10725-100000@staff.opaltelecom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Richard,
I believe you also missed
must operate a US-wide OC48 network.
must exchange at 4 locations over OC3 or above with at least 45Mb traffic
per location
and most friendly of all, you must supply a detailed network topology and
current operational capacities.. why not ask for 5 year business plan and
bank numbers too .. and how about next weeks lottery numbers?
Steve
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:50:00PM -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
> >
> > Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not
> > totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who
> > benefits: the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic
> > ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit.
>
> This makes for some great logic. If you really believe that traffic in
> either direction can be equally beneficial, then why require ratios at
> all? If on the other hand, you believe that content is less valuable than
> eyeballs, wouldn't eyeball providers be the most valuable of peers? Except
> in the case of mismanagement (such as a congested peer), a peer benefits
> everyone. Why does it matter that a peer benefit both sides in exactly the
> same ways?
>
> Yes there are legitimate arguments in the favor of not accepting smaller
> peers. If they're all eyeballs and only in one location you have to haul
> traffic there that you otherwise would have dropped locally on one of the
> bigger peers that they buy transit from. But if they can meet the
> locations, I don't see a legitimate argument for ratios. Perhaps what you
> need to do is consider distance to the egress point above AS Path length.
> :)
>
> Then we comes to those little things that are just there to try and keep
> people from qualifying to peer. You can't be serious about requiring 5000
> routes can you? Way to encourage aggregation, really.
>
> When it comes down to it, someone on your network has PAID YOU to BRING
> them traffic as well as to deliver it. If you can't do that then I'm sure
> they can find someone who can. As for the "if they can't peer, they'll buy
> transit" argument, I find that equally negated by the "if they won't peer,
> why should I buy their transit" argument.
>
>
