yea whatever..

 its upto mike leber and dave schaeffer to decide. they can either accept or reject the solution

I have been always believing content creator/provider should pay expenses (at least excess traffic).

because they put their server in some datacenter and reach all of the internet.. their backbone expenses are less..

i can understand that todays datacenters including he.net are interested to participate in 200-300 IXPs.

well that acceptable. it should be considered too

so i would offer both companies 3 cent per mbps for excess traffic.

ok bye

But that traffic was likely requested by and for the benefit of the person the traffic is being sent to.

I've always found the argument that the quantity of traffic is the indicator of who should pay to be questionable. 

If I'm an end user on an eyeball user and request a big download or streaming from a provider, isn't it me that caused that traffic to flow?  One could argue that I am the one that needs to pay. 

On the other hand, one could argue that it's the provider of the content that I requested that needs to pay, since it's their content which is being distributed.

When you get to peering between two providers it's almost impossible to decide who needs to pay.    As I mentioned above, passing that traffic is actually to the benefit of both providers.

About the only settlement I could see is where one of the providers is bearing most of the transport costs.  For example a regional provider only peering at one exchange point might expect some settlement costs with a big international provider that is effectively carrying their traffic both directions around the globe.  But the quantity of that type of traffic is likely minimal in the grand scheme of things.     Even then one might argue that connectivity to the small provider is still valuable to the customers of the large provider.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:32 AM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik@gmail.com> wrote:

the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount.

as content networks are supposed to pay expenses.

what do you think?

19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı:

The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables turn as to who pays?

The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying?

The network with more POPs gets paid?

The network with more downstream ASes gets paid?

Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6?

-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

---

From: "VOLKAN KIRIK" <volkirik@gmail.com>
To: "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, dschaeffer@cogentco.com, peering@cogentco.com
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 10:22:00 AM
Subject: Re: cogent and henet not peering

this is 50/50 situation. nobody has to peer for free.

but everyone can.

lets just say above 1:1 ratio he.net pays their own ip transit price to cogent for paid peering excess amount and both sides monitor traffic

we can solve this issue by becoming middlemen worldwide...

both operators are cheap and they could all compete in quality.

level3 pays comcast reasonable (cheap) price (under NDA maybe?). why wouldnt mleber?

but to make it fair, as he.net becomes ww tier-1 operator day-by-day, lets just limit pricing to excess amount of traffic

thanks for reading

would appreciate your support

19.08.2022 18:09 tarihinde Rubens Kuhl yazdı:

OTOH, knowing that Cogent loves splitting the global Internet is one
good reason to not contract their services.
I think they sell traffic to their private Intranet. Which is huge,
but doesn't encompass the whole Internet.


Rubens

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik@gmail.com> wrote:

lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common with he.net for free.

BUT they will rate-limit he.net links to previous month's 95th percentile upload or download (which is minimum) rate (each month)

to make ratio 1:1... to make downstream and upstream traffics fair...

okay?

fine?

come on people,

segmentation is bad.