[86326] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Tue Nov 1 18:07:33 2005
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Cc: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:02:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: <524903AF-41E9-4717-A919-1BF18E92AE78@sackheads.org> (John
Payne's message of "Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:46:20 -0500")
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
* John Payne:
> That is something that has always confused me about ratio based
> peering disputes.
I don't understand them, either. However, if you define incoming
traffic as "bad", it encourages depeering by the receiving side if the
incoming/outgoing ratio exceeds a certain value, especially among
close-to-tier-1 carriers: the traffic does not automatically disappear
just because you depeer. Now suppose that the sending side doesn't
want to play games and buys transit from one of your other peers.
Given the tier-1 status, there is some chance that this has a
measurable impact on the traffic ratio with that other peer.
Essentially, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it works equally
well if you define outgoing traffic as "bad".
