On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
In Other Words: Network B is carrying 1500 byte packets 3000 miles, and Network A is carrying 64 byte packets 3000 miles.
Ahhh now I see... Network B is actually carrying ~25x the traffic for a given flow..... Thus is costs them 30x as much for the cross-country piece, and thus Network A should in some way help out with the costs.
Of course this gets really interesting when you start thinking about what kinds of implications this kind of thing can have in the long term. When Network B demands that Network A pays a settlement, Network A will obviously want to find a way out of it eventually. To do that, Network A drops it's pricing for customers that 'suck' a lot of bandwidth to balance out their traffic and avoid the settlement fees. Those customers that 'suck' are most likely the customers of Network B in the first place that Network A is now targeting. So in the end, Network A ends up creating a lot of downward price pressure on themselves!! Believe me, this is not just a theory, I've been involved with this exact situation from both the backbone and the transit purchaser side, and this is really happening. It's somewhat ironic, but it seems that the cost model for the Internet is moving towards a sender pays model. Brandon Ross 404-522-5400 VP Engineering, NetRail http://www.netrail.net AIM: BrandonNR ICQ: 2269442 Read RFC 2644! Stop Smurf attacks! Configure your router interfaces to block directed broadcasts. See http://www.quadrunner.com/~chuegen/smurf.cgi for details.