nanog mailing list archives

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP


From: Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 15:23:58 -0400

Matthew,

There is a difference between what should be philosophically and what
happened with Level 3 which is a contractual issue.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>wrote:

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net> wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
ISP
to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect
peering
ratios to be symmetric

is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about
offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be
1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the
traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into
some horrific location(s) to access the content in question.

Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly
germaine to the conversation at hand.


Traffic asymmetry across peering connections
was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg,
if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic
went asymmetric, the refusals to augment
capacity kicked in, and congestion became
a problem.

I've seen the same thing; pretty much every
rejection is based on ratio issues, even when
offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the
home market for the users.

If the refusals hinged on any other clause
of the peering requirements, you'd be right;
but at the moment, that's the flag networks
are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour.
So, it may be very "1990", but unfortunately
that seems to be the year many people in
the industry are mentally stuck in.  :(

Matt



Current thread: