sean@donelan.com (Sean Donelan) writes:

If you look at Abovenet's traffic graphs, you'll notice Abovenet has a wide variety of traffic balances with different providers. Some in Abovenet's favor (such as 3:1 with Sprint, 5:1 with Teleglobe) and some in the other provider's favor (such as 1:3 with Exodus). ...

"Favor"? What, precisely, connotes "favor" in this regard? Sending more, or receiving more? And: why?

... I think interconnection agreements should be based on the point of interconnection. When you delve too much in how the internals of other providers' networks work, I think you are always going to run into problems. I think it is best to view other provider's networks as a black box.

I don't agree. Peering is a business relationship transcending locations. The best peering agreements I know of (e.g., mine) specify growth terms so that traffic won't eventually encounter congestion while trying to get from one to the other or back again. Some forms of growth involve additional peering locations, and some do not. A peering agreement which was based on the point of interconnection would be far less useful in avoiding congestion. -- Paul Vixie <Paul.Vixie@MMFN.COM> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX) AboveNet, PAIX, and MIBH are subsidiaries of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.