[I really wasn't going to get involved in this mire, but this is too easy. Standard disclaimers abound.]
Sure, but only the assymetry that results from BBN customers ASKING for more than they OFFER.
Or is it the asymmetry that results from Exodus customers OFFERING more than they ASK FOR? ...so now you are looking to dictate what business prodcuts/models someone uses?
other. Just because long distance phone calling introduced the purely artificial concept that the initiator of the transaction pays for it does not mean we should analyze IP traffic in the same way. "Artificiality" applies in the telephone model, where the circuit is set up and you can't/won't/don't know about the payload [which end talks more? is there a lot of silence? does the quality suck?]. Packet switching shows a lot about the payload [packet sizes, packet frequency, and retransmissions] from both sides.
In the past we have considered the initiator of IP transactions to be irrelevant and had no-charge peering for networks that basically send a similar number of bytes to what they receive.
So what do we do when that is no longer the case? The requests handled by pointy-clicky-"dub dub dub"; great wodges of traffic being burned on lossy protocols. The traffic doesn't spontaneously decide to slam down pipes to non-path-discovery Windoze dialups. The humans behind the dialups asked for something (albeit, they had no forwarnings about adverts, pictures, applets, etc etc.).
Back to life, Joe -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo@ultra.net>
In the past we have considered the initiator of IP transactions to be irrelevant and had no-charge peering for networks that basically send a similar number of bytes to what they receive.
So what do we do when that is no longer the case?
Pray someone doesn't write a call-back protocol, so traffic flows in the opposite direction from the original initiator of the IP 'transaction'. That becomes popular in a webbrowser. Or a popular game. Then you'd have to monitor more information than just total traffic flow in and out of an interface. For video and voice over IP type services, the traffic flow should (largely) be symetrical. But what else would be that makes this issue complicated? Right now the name of the game is content. Email, web, news, realaudio, realvideo. Later on when interactive (ie symetric traffic) applications like voice/video over IP come into play, wouldn't it make more sense to handle 'interconnecting' between two different voice/video services by some other way? (Please, if I've missed something here, I'd be glad to know...) Puzzled, Adrian
On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Adrian Chadd wrote:
In the past we have considered the initiator of IP transactions to be irrelevant and had no-charge peering for networks that basically send a similar number of bytes to what they receive.
So what do we do when that is no longer the case?
Pray someone doesn't write a call-back protocol, so traffic flows in the opposite direction from the original initiator of the IP 'transaction'.
FTP already does this. Nevertheless, the largest number of bytes still flows in the same direction as it would with HTTP. I think you are agreeing with me that the initiator of the transaction is irrelevant. I would go further and say that the customers of the peers and their actions are also irrelevant to the peering relationship. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com
On Sat, Aug 22, 1998 at 07:13:22AM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
Pray someone doesn't write a call-back protocol, so traffic flows in the opposite direction from the original initiator of the IP 'transaction'.
FTP already does this. Nevertheless, the largest number of bytes still flows in the same direction as it would with HTTP. I think you are agreeing with me that the initiator of the transaction is irrelevant.
Michael, you've always struck me as one of the saner inhabitants of this list -- which I guess really translates as "you and I almost always have the same outlook on things" :-) -- but this must be where we part company. In the current context, which I would translate as "who is responsible for the bytes moving over a link -- and therefore ought to pay for it", it's pretty obvious to _me_ that if Exodus' customers are sending data to GTEI's customers _because the latter requested it_, then Exodus ought not, in equity, to be considered "responsible" for that data; they were just doing as asked.
I would go further and say that the customers of the peers and their actions are also irrelevant to the peering relationship.
On this, hoewver, I agree. The real breakage here is GETI attempting to redefine "peering". The net got where it is today as a "non-settlement" network. Any plan to change that would have to be documented in about 50 pages for me to buy it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
participants (4)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Joe Provo - Network Architect -
Michael Dillon