nanog mailing list archives

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP


From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 07:39:13 +0200

On Friday, May 16, 2014 08:52:31 PM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though?
Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not
be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even
10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic
over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build
into some horrific location(s) to access the content in
question.

Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not
particularly germaine to the conversation at hand.

Agree.

We don't have a ratio requirement, for example. We have a 
"if it makes sense" requirement.

I'm forced to peer with certain African providers in London 
and Amsterdam because they don't want to peer in Africa, 
where we are literally are an x-connect away from each 
other. And the reasons are not even because either of us is 
larger or smaller than the other... it's just legacy 
thinking and we're the new guy that has grown rapidly.

Now we both have to pay for traffic to get sent to Europe 
and back. How nice...

Mark.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Current thread: