[85387] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3's side of the story
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sat Oct 8 12:13:43 2005
In-Reply-To: <p06230904bf6d91400264@[192.168.3.67]>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:13:13 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Oct 8, 2005, at 11:42 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Cold potato routing alone is insufficient in many cases, and some
> form of
> settlement becomes necessary.
>
> http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9808/msg00517.html
This does not in any way explain why cold-potato routing is
insufficient.
But I seriously doubt a consensus will be found in this forum, or
between John & me. :)
Let's just say that there _are_ technical means to make "traffic
imbalances" either (close to) fair, or reverse the financial burden.
And almost every hoster I know (and certainly some of the ones
involved in the original BBN / Exodus / Above.Net / etc. fracas) were
perfectly willing to take on more of the cost so the eyeball network
actually has a financial incentive to peer.
--
TTFN,
patrick
