Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

[Dominik Bay <db () rrbone net>]

On 05/01/2012 07:07 PM, Steven Noble wrote:
> While I can understand having some peering requirements, the goal of any CDN should be to have the best reach 
> possible.  Without knowing if this is PI peering or just across a IX it is hard to judge what their (or your) costs 
> are.  If it is IX it would seem irrational to cut off someone who you are doing meaningful traffic with.

This is over an IXP, I should've pointed that out.

> > ----8<----
> > In this particular case I'm talking about >=600Mbps of traffic send out by Limelight to "my" eyeballs, not 
> > mentioning their fairly small footprint in Germany in comparison to other CDNs.
>
> 600Mbps would appear to be meaningful traffic.  Without the other side of the story it's hard to get a full grip on 
> the situation.  It is always possible that these are business (not network) decisions where there is a certain level 
> of income expected from a division.
>
> > These points aside, we are talking about a Content *Delivery* Network here. There are CDNs out there who burn to 
> > improve their customer experience (both the content creators and the content receiver) at high cost.
> > Having a Tier1 attitude and telling eyeball networks with <1Gbps of traffic exchanged to bugger off or pay is not 
> > one of the ways to improve this.
>
> I do agree here, again on an IX level.   They still have the choice to backhaul to you or hot potato your traffic 
> wherever they feel like it.  From the data you have provide it appears to be a lose-lose situation to de-peer you.
>
> > At the end of the day I'm going to charge CDNs who want to deliver their customers content to my eyeballs and make 
> > me pay (about 2USD per Mbps, with a minimum of 1Gbps).
>
> That may be what they are doing "if at all possible try to monetize it".

Agreed on all points. There's at least nothing technical which needs
solving.