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 residentialISPto purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expectpeeringratios to be symmetricis '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:
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP, (continued)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Blake Hudson (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Scott Helms (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Blake Hudson (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Scott Helms (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Blake Hudson (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Christopher Morrow (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Blake Hudson (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Christopher Morrow (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Mark Tinka (May 17)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Matthew Petach (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Scott Helms (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Christopher Morrow (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Ca By (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Owen DeLong (May 18)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Matthew Petach (May 18)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Mark Tinka (May 17)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Randy Bush (May 18)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Randy Bush (May 18)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Mark Tinka (May 18)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Scott Helms (May 16)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP James R Cutler (May 16)