[I really wasn't going to get involved in this mire, but this is too
easy. Standard disclaimers abound.]
> > Sure, but only the assymetry that results from BBN customers ASKING for more
> > than they OFFER.
>
> Or is it the asymmetry that results from Exodus customers OFFERING more
> than they ASK FOR?
...so now you are looking to dictate what business prodcuts/models
someone uses?
> other. Just because long distance phone calling introduced the purely
> artificial concept that the initiator of the transaction pays for it does
> not mean we should analyze IP traffic in the same way.
"Artificiality" applies in the telephone model, where the circuit is set
up and you can't/won't/don't know about the payload [which end talks
more? is there a lot of silence? does the quality suck?]. Packet
switching shows a lot about the payload [packet sizes, packet frequency,
and retransmissions] from both sides.
> In the past we have
> considered the initiator of IP transactions to be irrelevant and had
> no-charge peering for networks that basically send a similar number of
> bytes to what they receive.
>
> So what do we do when that is no longer the case?
The requests handled by pointy-clicky-"dub dub dub"; great wodges
of traffic being burned on lossy protocols. The traffic doesn't
spontaneously decide to slam down pipes to non-path-discovery Windoze
dialups. The humans behind the dialups asked for something (albeit,
they had no forwarnings about adverts, pictures, applets, etc etc.).
Back to life,
Joe
--
Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006
Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375
UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo(a)ultra.net>
