We have the same picture there. If we have 1000 kilimoters back-bone, we include the cost of this back-bone into our prices, and sell 64K for (for example) 100bokazoids. If small ISP crinix opens free-of-chsarge peering with us, he must not include the cost of back-bone into their prices, and they sell 64K for 50 bokazoids. This mean we can't allow free-of-charge peering with them.
Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net> wrote:
Any provider that does not recognize the value of bilateral, no-settlement peering anywhere that its cost-effective for both parties (ie: if you have traffic destined for me, get it on MY network where I'm being paid to carry it and let ME figure the rest out!) deserves what they get.
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to subsidies from large peers to small.
That already was beaten to death. However, i repeat the argument:
Big Provider Customer A ---[POP] ------------- 1000 miles -----------[POP] | IXP | Customer B ------[POP]-1 mile-[POP] Small Provider
When customers A and B talk Big Provider pays to get them through 1000 miles. Small Provider pays for 1 mile.
Note that i didn't even talk about less measurabe, but way too more important things like hosting of information suppliers. Say, Big Provider connects 1000 web sites; Small Provider hosts 1 site -- benefit from peering in terms of Web site diversity to the Big Provider's customers is 0.1%. To Small Provider's customers the benefit of peering is 99.9%.
Zero-settlements work only when peers are of comparable size. Any attempt to extort pressure to force it upon anyone simply causes large folks to flee.
--vadim
--- Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)