nanog mailing list archives
Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:04:44 +0800
p.s. The fact that the sender of traffic should be paying some portion of the resulting costs is not a surprise to anyone; many of the content companies that I've spoken to believe they already are paying more as traffic increases, and were quite surprised to find that it doesn't actually make it to the networks which bear the brunt of the traffic carriage.
Why don't you just resort to a bit-counting method that I suggested earlier for settlement peering, and make the *SENDER* carry the traffic to the 'local' destination ? That way, the sender has to build a large enough network to distribute its traffic to the destination networks, without just presenting at one network point and expecting destination networks to foot the inter-state / inter-country traffic .. ? Adrian
Current thread:
- Re: BBN/GTEI, (continued)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 26)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 27)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 27)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 28)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 28)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 28)
- Re: BBN/GTEI steve (Aug 28)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 31)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Mike Leber (Aug 21)
- Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Adrian Chadd (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Patrick Greenwell (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Paul Vixie (Aug 24)
- Re: BBN/GTEI steve (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Paul A Vixie (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI alex (Aug 25)