On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:50:00PM -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who benefits: the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit.
This makes for some great logic. If you really believe that traffic in either direction can be equally beneficial, then why require ratios at all? If on the other hand, you believe that content is less valuable than eyeballs, wouldn't eyeball providers be the most valuable of peers? Except in the case of mismanagement (such as a congested peer), a peer benefits everyone. Why does it matter that a peer benefit both sides in exactly the same ways? Yes there are legitimate arguments in the favor of not accepting smaller peers. If they're all eyeballs and only in one location you have to haul traffic there that you otherwise would have dropped locally on one of the bigger peers that they buy transit from. But if they can meet the locations, I don't see a legitimate argument for ratios. Perhaps what you need to do is consider distance to the egress point above AS Path length. :) Then we comes to those little things that are just there to try and keep people from qualifying to peer. You can't be serious about requiring 5000 routes can you? Way to encourage aggregation, really. When it comes down to it, someone on your network has PAID YOU to BRING them traffic as well as to deliver it. If you can't do that then I'm sure they can find someone who can. As for the "if they can't peer, they'll buy transit" argument, I find that equally negated by the "if they won't peer, why should I buy their transit" argument. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)