Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Jerry Dent <effinjdent () gmail com>]

Let's not kid ourselves, the transit providers are just as greedy. Even the
tier 2 ones (minus HE). My favorite is when they turn down your request
because you have an out of band circuit in a remote pop with them. As if
we're stuffing 800G of traffic down a 1G circuit that's never seen 100K of
traffic on it. Or the "It would jeopardize our peering agreements with
other providers" ... followed by a call from one of their sales guys the
next day.



On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Siegel, David <David.Siegel () level3 com>wrote:

> Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have
> a way of evaluating the relative burdens.  Every major net flow Analytics
> vendor is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that
> each party can calculate not only how much traffic they carry for each
> peer, but how far.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> 520.229.7627 cell
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:23 PM, "Benson Schliesser" <bensons () queuefull net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > > That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in
> system that existed at that time.  However today what you describe no
> longer really makes any sense.
> > > While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric
> routing, your theory is based on the idea that a content site exists in one
> location, and does not want to optimize the user experience.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > A much better business arrangement would be to tie a sliding fee to the
> ratio.  Peering up to 2:1 is free.  Up to 4:1 is $0.50/meg, up to 6:1 is
> $1.00/meg, up to 10:1 is $1.50 a meg.  Eyeball network gets to recover
> their long haul transport costs, it's cheaper to the CDN than buying
> transit,
> > Agreed that CDN, traffic steering, etc, changes the impact of routing
> protocols. But I think you made my point. The sending peer (or their
> customer) has more control over cost. And we don't really have a good proxy
> for evaluating relative burdens.
> > That's not to suggest that peering disputes are really about technical
> capabilities. Nor fairness, even...
> > Cheers,
> > -Benson