At 12:10 PM 19980813 -0700, Robert Bowman wrote:

...

I am referring to output of Exodus traffic relative to input of BBN

you keep missing the most obvious interpretation: 1.85% of exodus's output goes to bbn. 10-30% of bbn's input is from exodus. this may still be a ridiculous figure, but maybe not, if exodus is hosting 30 of the top 100 web sites. matt sommer webkorner.com -----Original Message----- From: Dan Ritter <dsr@bbn.com> To: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> Cc: fez@mindspring.net <fez@mindspring.net>; nanog@merit.edu <nanog@merit.edu> Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 1:54 PM Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues traffic,

...

not vice versa. Exodus consumes very little of BBN's output (Exodus input). Isn't that the "supposed" problem? Our private exchange statistics show it very simply, if BBN disconnects, it will drop our traffic by 1.85%. I cannot speak for certain about BBN's traffic input as an aggregate, that is why I stated below that we are estimating.

...

...

...

off. Let's face the facts, BBN is only 1.85% of my traffic. By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic. Lots of luck. We actually see a massively inverted benefit scale in this particular situation.

It seems intuitively reasonable to me that 1.85% of Exodus input comes from BBN. No arguments there. I would like to know where the "By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic." sentence comes from. Are you suggesting that 10-30% of BBN's total output goes to Exodus? Or that 10-30% of Exodus output goes to BBN?

The first scenario is ridiculous. The second scenario is possible, but I would suspect it is closer to 10% than 30%.

-dsr-

...Still not speaking for the company...