Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement

[John Curran <jcurran () bbnplanet com>]

At 03:15 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > ...
> > Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs
> > and the sending customer bears some of the costs.  In the case
> > of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting
> > traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up 
> > bearing all of the costs.  
>
> Well, my understanding is (and someone correct me if I am wrong) in at
> least the case of Exodus, they aren't using closest-exit. I can completely
> understand requiring peers not use closest-exit. That seems somewhat
> reasonable.

I was not referring to any particular peering relationship, 
only problems brought about by closest-exit peering in the 
presence of highly assymetric traffic.

> I haven't seen anything in these recent discussions to suggest that BBN
> would be offering me a discount on inbound traffic since now the sender
> would be paying for it.  

In the case of traffic coming coming from a peer network with wildly
asymmetric traffic, the sending network is paying to offset the traffic
assymetry; this returns the economics to that of a balanced peer or
an on-net sender (which is the normal case today).

/John