Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
At 03:15 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
... Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs and the sending customer bears some of the costs. In the case of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up bearing all of the costs.
Well, my understanding is (and someone correct me if I am wrong) in at least the case of Exodus, they aren't using closest-exit. I can completely understand requiring peers not use closest-exit. That seems somewhat reasonable.
I was not referring to any particular peering relationship, only problems brought about by closest-exit peering in the presence of highly assymetric traffic.
I haven't seen anything in these recent discussions to suggest that BBN would be offering me a discount on inbound traffic since now the sender would be paying for it.
In the case of traffic coming coming from a peer network with wildly asymmetric traffic, the sending network is paying to offset the traffic assymetry; this returns the economics to that of a balanced peer or an on-net sender (which is the normal case today). /John
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, John Curran wrote:
At 03:15 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
... Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs and the sending customer bears some of the costs. In the case of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up bearing all of the costs.
Well, my understanding is (and someone correct me if I am wrong) in at least the case of Exodus, they aren't using closest-exit. I can completely understand requiring peers not use closest-exit. That seems somewhat reasonable.
I was not referring to any particular peering relationship, only problems brought about by closest-exit peering in the presence of highly assymetric traffic.
Well, again correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can discuss specific relationships. That's understandable, but the actions of BBN in this specific case aren't clear to me as it does not fit the profile you are describing.
I haven't seen anything in these recent discussions to suggest that BBN would be offering me a discount on inbound traffic since now the sender would be paying for it.
In the case of traffic coming coming from a peer network with wildly asymmetric traffic, the sending network is paying to offset the traffic assymetry; this returns the economics to that of a balanced peer or an on-net sender (which is the normal case today).
John, that does not at all address my statement. If the sender is paying for requested data, is my bill going down? I'm fairly confident the answer is no. So this leaves a situation where the sender will most likely have to charge me for the requested data as well in order to cover costs, and I end up paying twice. I am not particularly fond of paying for things twice. Once is quite enough thanks. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v Systems Administrator (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
participants (2)
-
John Curran -
Patrick Greenwell