RE: PCH Peering Paper

[Phil Bedard <bedard.phil () gmail com>]

I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free peering between large content providers and eyeball 
networks there are written agreements in place.  I would have no clue on the volume percentage but it's not going to be 
near 99%.  

Phil



From: Livingood, Jason
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:41 AM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: re: PCH Peering Paper

How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links
but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like
50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up -
could be any percentage.)


Jason

PS - My email address has changed and I’m trying to send a 3rd time.
Apologies if they all suddenly post to the list as duplicates! :-)

> On 2/10/16, 6:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Patrick W. Gilmore"
> <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of patrick () ianai net> wrote:
>
> > I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules,
> > talking about myself.)
> >
> > The paper is:
> >      https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2
> > 0
> > 11.pdf
> >
> > I said ³99.97%² of all peering sessions have nothing behind them more
> > than a ³handshake² or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Culpa.
> >
> > The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%.
> >
> > Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better
> > data.
> >
> > -- 
> > TTFN,
> > patrick