RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

Well put. The etymology of the whole mindset around peering is a legacy
from the academic/socialist roots of the Internet. There are still a
great number of people who think this is some kind of social engineering
experiment, as opposed to a communications infrastructure run by, and
for the benefit of, businesses.

If that craws anyone's hide, then go build community networks and peer
with each other, no-one's going to stop you. By the same token, you
don't have the right to force anyone else to pay for what you want.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick () ianai net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:46 AM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
>
> On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, bas <kilobit () gmail com> said:
> > > I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too..
> > > "You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money
> > > to
> > > upgrade ports and transport all that traffic"  Complete reverse
logic
> > > imho. It is always eyeball network customers that request data.
> > > (except for a small portion of iphone/blackberry push email, but
that
> > > can't account for much.)
> >
> > Traffic sources tend to be concentrated in large data centers
> > (easier to
> > service), while traffic sinks (DSL, cable, wireless) are widespread
> > and
> > costly to upgrade.  The sink customers don't want to pay more (and
> > there's at least some competition), so the sink providers look to see
> > where else they get income to pay for their needed network upgrades.
>
> Combined with hot-potato routing, the first part of that paragraph is
> a fancy way of saying "I have to carry the large packet a long way,
> you have to carry the small packet a long way".  It is not "fair".
> This is almost a good reason, but not quite.  (It can also be offset
> by moving the source next to the sink, through cold-potato routing /
> MEDs, anycast, CDNs, etc.)
>
> The second part is a good business reason.  Profitable revenue is
> good, costs are bad.
>
> There are good business reasons not to pay the sink as well.  But
> neither decision is obvious or the same for everyone.
>
> Peering is complicated, people should stop trying to generalize it.
>
>
> Peering is a business tool.   For years & years many people have
> claimed that to "peer" you must be equal.  Bullshit.  If I can make
> more or spend less by peering, I should do it.  If not, I should not.
> Full stop.  Notice the complete lack of regard for how big you are,
> how much capacity your backbone has, how many ASes are downstream of
> you, etc.?  When I go to buy routers or hire employees or any other
> business transaction, I don't say "that router vendor is making more
> money than I am, so I won't buy from him".  If people applied
> "peering" logic to anything else, they'd be laughed out of a job.
>
> Don't know about you, but I am in business to make money, not measure
> my anatomy.  How big the next guy is doesn't enter into my equation -
> other than how it affects my bottom line.
>
> To be clear, it is entirely possible that peering does not save you
> money.  Vijay is right, most people can't measure their COGS to save
> their life.  And if the network in question cannot, there's no way in
> hell the prospective peer can.  If you are a huge point source of
> traffic and want to peer, I may save money by saying no and paying a
> transit provider to deliver the packet to me where I want it
> (especially at today's prices).  Fiber, routers, colo, NOC employees,
> engineers, etc., are all not free ya know.
>
> You can claim my customers asked for the data and therefore I have a
> requirement to peer, but you would be deluded.  What my customer and I
> have agreed has _nothing_ to do with you or your needs.  You don't
> tell me how to run my network, and I won't tell you how to run yours.
> Deal?
>
> On the flip side, saying "you are not on 3 continents so I will not
> peer" is stupid of not peering costs you millions a year.  Stupid
> decisions abound in the peering ecosystem.
>
> There are tons of other _business_ reasons to peer, or not to peer.
> But "we're equal" or "your customer asked for it" are not reasons,
> stop using them.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick