On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Robert Bowman wrote:
Isn't being a pioneer doing best-exit to eliminate the cost imbalances? I thought that was the whole idea behind what BBN/Exodus were doing.
I don't know your network and BBN's well enough to do anything but guess here, but wouldn't there still be asymmetry in the number of bits of traffic exchanged, even with best exit?
I'm not sure if the things I am discussing are directly applicable to your situation with BBN but if you think some of this stuff could work and are willing to try it, why not ask BBN if they would consider some sort of interim agreement while you work out the details. I guess I'm the kind of guy who always looks for a creative, off-the-wall, "think different" kind of solution to a problem in negotiations. The worst the other folks can say is no. But sometimes they say hmmm...
Sure, but only the assymetry that results from BBN customers ASKING for more than they OFFER. Owen
On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Owen DeLong wrote:
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? I don't think one of these views has any claim to precedence over the 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. 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? -- 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 Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Owen DeLong wrote:
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?
Of course not. The BBN customers have to request the data. Exodus isn't forcing the traffic down their throats. I don't see how it could be much clearer.
I don't think one of these views has any claim to precedence over the other.
Given that the assymetry of traffic is caused by BBN customers requesting the traffic, sure it does.
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.
It isn't artificial. It maps to the real world: Me: "Hi, I'd like to have a pizza delivered." Pizza Place: "Ok, that'll be $19.95." What you are proposing has the pizza place paying for the pizza. Awesome if you could pull it off, I love free pizza, but totally absurd to expect or attempt to require. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v Systems Administrator (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
What this is clearly illustrating is that dialup customers are not as profitable as they used to be, and that web hosting and dedicated service are very profitable. Let's propose for a minute that Exodus is so unhappy about losing BBN connectivity that they buy transit to get to BBN from a third party (clearly they're not going to buy it directly from BBN). They enter in to a contract for transit to BBN via a third party, UUNet as an example. They run a local fddi (or whatever) to a UUNet router which then dumps the traffic the fastest way possible. UUNet then scores a little bit of money for the trouble, and BBN gets nothing except more traffic to run coast to coast. Now what are they going to do? Dump UUNet too? Please. BBN should either find a way of making dialup profitable or get in to other lines of service. Trying to extort money from peers is a ludicrous waste of time. Austin
participants (4)
-
Austin Schutz -
Michael Dillon -
owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US -
Patrick Greenwell