On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:22:34PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
see craig's report from nanog47: <http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Monday/Labovitz_ObserveReport_N47_Mon.pdf>
not for a time has Comcast been solely an 'eye-ball' network... or so they think.
I think you are misreading the data.
s/you are/Craig is/ I was just passing along a study presented at a nanog meeting about this kind of topic... I really do like to know next to nothing about peering.
I have no idea in Comcast's case specifically, or in any recent case as my skin isn't in the game right now. However I am quite sure in the past I have delt with networks who wanted 2:1 on peering, but where I was nearly positive their customer base was 3:1 or 4:1. Basically the ratio became an excuse to depeer anyone they didn't like, it was all a sham.
sure, there are more variables (I gather) than just bits in/out... like 'but my customers complain more if you are further away/slower/more-lossy' etc. None of those factors are in peering agreements I would bet, though clearly ratios are, so that stick is used to whack the other-guy over the head.
But I come back to my fundamental beef with cable and DSL providers, when you're selling 50/5 (10:1 ratio), 25/5 (5:1 ratio), 12/2 (6:1 ratio) services, you can't expect to maintain a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio with your peers.
web traffic (as a measure) seems to be ~10:1 when I look at my interface at home (vz-consumer-type), without packet-loss and over a decent sample of time. As with all of the 'peering disputes' over the last few years, it'll be a fun ride to watch from the outside :) -Chris