nanog mailing list archives
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
From: Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:02:33 +0100
* John Payne:
That is something that has always confused me about ratio based peering disputes.
I don't understand them, either. However, if you define incoming traffic as "bad", it encourages depeering by the receiving side if the incoming/outgoing ratio exceeds a certain value, especially among close-to-tier-1 carriers: the traffic does not automatically disappear just because you depeer. Now suppose that the sending side doesn't want to play games and buys transit from one of your other peers. Given the tier-1 status, there is some chance that this has a measurable impact on the traffic ratio with that other peer. Essentially, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it works equally well if you define outgoing traffic as "bad".
Current thread:
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now, (continued)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Pete Templin (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Deepak Jain (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Jeff Aitken (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Jon Lewis (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now John Payne (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Brandon Ross (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Brandon Ross (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Florian Weimer (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Deepak Jain (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Erik Haagsman (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- RE: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Sean Donelan (Nov 04)