nanog mailing list archives

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.


From: Jerry Dent <effinjdent () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:41:59 -0500

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:45:29PM -0500, Jerry Dent wrote:
Can be for the end users if they wind up on a less direct network path.

"Direct" is not the only measure.

I would take a 4-hop, 10GE, no packet loss path over a 1-hop, 1GE,
5% packet loss path any day of the week.

"Shorter" {hops, latency, as-path} does not mean a higher quality end
user experience.


I was using "Direct" as a generic term. And if the issue was link
performance, company A would have sent company B a "shape up or we'll
de-peer" message rather than a "pay up or we'll de-peer" message.


Current thread: