On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
However, I can say what global prevailing business practice is, since I’ve actually surveyed and quantified it:
Each network [..] pays their own way to the IXP of their choice that the other party is present at, each network receiving a packet pays their own way from the IXP of their counterpart’s choice that they’re present at, independently in each direction.
Hi Bill, I take issue with this claim because: On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
The survey was of interconnection norms, not of hugeness.
And, "Of the total analyzed agreements, [...] 141,512 (99.51%) were “handshake” agreements in which the parties agreed to informal or commonly understood terms without creating a written document." As a result, the data set suffers three flaws: 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. 2. The overwhelming majority of the agreements analyzed were handshake agreements but no picture is available of the handshake agreements those same parties rejected outright or, expecting rejection elected not to pursue. That creates a data bias which could mask any number of factors, leaving you no way to determine that the claimed norm bears any resemblance to the results one might expect when proposing peering with a neighbor. 3. The data supports no affirmative statement about the the peering case most relevant to network neutrality: that of a small network seeking to peer with a large one. More to the point, what agreements occur or fail to occur when one network is in a position to strong-arm the other and does this diverge from the general case? That having been said, kudos for the excellent research. As far as objective numbers go, yours are more thorough than any others I've seen. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?