Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote:
> On 5/1/12, Dominik Bay <db () rrbone net> wrote:
> > Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN:
> >
> > ---->8----
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Limelight Networks [has] recently updated our requirements for
> > settlement-free peering

I love the fact Dominik says "from a CDN", then leaves Limelight's name in the text. :)


> If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router
> and pay you for the staff hours to set it up, there should be *no*
> situation in which I'm willing to accept your traffic from an upstream
> Internet link but am unwilling to engage in otherwise settlement-free
> peering with you.

I disagree with this.  In fact, I can think of several possible cases where this would not hold, both using pure 
business and pure technical justifications.

Generalizations are difficult in complex situations, and this is most definitely a complex situation.


> Your customers have paid you to connect to me and my customers have
> paid me to connect to you. Double-billing the activity by either of us
> collecting money from the other is just plain wrong.

Wrong?  My rule is: Your network, your decision.  (Anyone who is paying attention knows my decision, but I it would be 
quite silly to assume my decision is right for all networks in all situations.)  Asking for settlements is not illegal, 
or even immoral.  Moreover, this is an operational list.  "Right" and "wrong" are not really part of the discussion.

But even if they were, this is not not "just plain wrong".  "It's just business" is a much better way to say it, and in 
business, trying to make more money is the _point_, not wrong.  Whether this is a good way to make money is left as an 
exercise to the reader.

Instead, let's focus on the operational impact.  Will the reduced complexity on these networks result in improved 
performance?  Irrelevant to performance?  Decreased performance?  Maybe even whether that change in performance is an 
acceptable trade for the lower CapEx/OpEx?  This is relevant since business requirements are the foundation for 
operational discussions.  Can't buy more 10G ports if the business doesn't support it.

Etc., etc.

But right vs. wrong in a peering dispute?  I think not.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick