SG> Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 10:30:21 -0700 (PDT) SG> From: Scott Granados SG> I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone SG> could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine SG> elegibility to peer? I have heard that some carrers SG> especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in SG> fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring SG> equal use of the peer? Ask Mr. Google or Mrs. Archives. Hints: * Traffic is often asymmetric. If I browse Web pages, I receive far more traffic than I send. * Routing... hot potato or cold potato? * Ramifications of requiring (or not) consistent adverts at different locations. It boils down to attempting to make the peering "equally beneficial" to both parties. I don't necessarily agree with (nor inherently object to) the reasoning, but that's the idea. I suspect that this was discussed last June during the 174/3561 incident. Keep in mind that the peering mindset is: "I'll buy transit if I can't peer. I'll peer if I can't sell transit. I'll sell transit if I can." -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.