> From: smd(a)clock.org (Sean M. Doran)
> "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> writes:
> > In view of the difference, I would suggest that the web farms have a
> > case that UUnet should pay _them_ for the priveledge of accessing their
> > content! Anytime UUnet asks for a fee for peering, just tell them that
> > you really consider them unequal, and that they should
> > pay YOU!
>
> This would be a really good idea because it would give a
> strong push into investing in web caching technologies at
> the ISP level. Once that's been done, and access-level
> devices (customer-aggregating NATs and the like) can be
> gotten reliably to intercept queries directed towards
> anything other than a web caching hierarchy, in an
> intelligent engineering effort to keep traffic as local as
> possible when it's possible, the whole spurious argument
> that this is about web farms will go away.
>
Agreed! Welcome back, Sean!
> And
> wouldn't you start wondering when small providers will
> start paying their own customers for the privilege of
> talking with them?
>
You got the shoe on the wrong foot here.
If the "inequality" of traffic (cited in the UUnet PR) is the reason for
the need for payment by the web farms (cited in the UUnet PR), then it
would be the web farms paying UUnet, who then pays the small providers,
and the small providers paying their customers.
As it turns out, the inequality is actually in the other direction.
UUnet is a consumer, not a provider, requesting the traffic from the web
farms. So, it would be the consumers paying the small ISPs, paying
UUnet, paying the web farms.
UUnet wants it both ways, with them getting paid in the middle....
We hashed all these scenarios out on the IETF list a few years ago. As
you say, in either direction, it is possible to shift the traffic
pattern with caching, and/or other technology. Any settlements proposal
skews the market, and would result in a technical push back.
I was going to write up "Settlements considered harmful", but never got
around to it. Wrote too many other more urgent things, instead....
WSimpson(a)UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
