nanog mailing list archives
Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
From: owen () DeLong SJ CA US (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:00:23 -0700
p.s. The fact that the sender of traffic should be paying some portion of the resulting costs is not a surprise to anyone; many of the content companies that I've spoken to believe they already are paying more as traffic increases, and were quite surprised to find that it doesn't actually make it to the networks which bear the brunt of the traffic carriage. p.p.s. As noted, departure from shortest-exit is also another approach which may provide some answers to this situation, but that's a different topic which deserves its own thread. This message is simply noting that settling for peering traffic is quite viable, despite assertions to the contrary regarding traffic generation. As long as you're billing the senders on your network for increased usage (and handing it off shortest-exit), increased traffic is good thing.
Except, John, that you ignore the fact that you have basically required anyone who wants to put a high-bandwidth server on your network to accept other people writing a blank check for them, regardless of the legitimacy of the hits they receive. I doubt the customer would be too happy if your peering policy suddenly tripled their bill. Owen
Current thread:
- Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Mike Leber (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Mike Leber (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John R. Levine (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Tracy J. Snell (Aug 26)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Karl Denninger (Aug 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Owen DeLong (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Message not available
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Brandon Ross (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Tracy J. Snell (Aug 26)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Mike Leber (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Patrick Greenwell (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Paul Vixie (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Richard Irving (Aug 24)