Let's not kid ourselves, the transit providers are just as greedy. Even the tier 2 ones (minus HE). My favorite is when they turn down your request because you have an out of band circuit in a remote pop with them. As if we're stuffing 800G of traffic down a 1G circuit that's never seen 100K of traffic on it. Or the "It would jeopardize our peering agreements with other providers" ... followed by a call from one of their sales guys the next day. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Siegel, David <David.Siegel@level3.com>wrote:
Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have a way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics vendor is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that each party can calculate not only how much traffic they carry for each peer, but how far.
Dave
-- 520.229.7627 cell
On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:23 PM, "Benson Schliesser" <bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in
While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric
routing, your theory is based on the idea that a content site exists in one location, and does not want to optimize the user experience.
...
A much better business arrangement would be to tie a sliding fee to the ratio. Peering up to 2:1 is free. Up to 4:1 is $0.50/meg, up to 6:1 is $1.00/meg, up to 10:1 is $1.50 a meg. Eyeball network gets to recover
system that existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer really makes any sense. their long haul transport costs, it's cheaper to the CDN than buying transit,
Agreed that CDN, traffic steering, etc, changes the impact of routing
protocols. But I think you made my point. The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost. And we don't really have a good proxy for evaluating relative burdens.
That's not to suggest that peering disputes are really about technical
capabilities. Nor fairness, even...
Cheers, -Benson