p.s. The fact that the sender of traffic should be paying some portion of the resulting costs is not a surprise to anyone; many of the content companies that I've spoken to believe they already are paying more as traffic increases, and were quite surprised to find that it doesn't actually make it to the networks which bear the brunt of the traffic carriage.

p.p.s. As noted, departure from shortest-exit is also another approach which may provide some answers to this situation, but that's a different topic which deserves its own thread. This message is simply noting that settling for peering traffic is quite viable, despite assertions to the contrary regarding traffic generation. As long as you're billing the senders on your network for increased usage (and handing it off shortest-exit), increased traffic is good thing.

Except, John, that you ignore the fact that you have basically required anyone who wants to put a high-bandwidth server on your network to accept other people writing a blank check for them, regardless of the legitimacy of the hits they receive. I doubt the customer would be too happy if your peering policy suddenly tripled their bill. Owen