nanog mailing list archives
Re: PCH Peering Paper
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood () comcast com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:49:41 +0000
On 2/12/16, 8:56 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Niels Bakker" <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of niels=nanog () bakker net> wrote:
* bedard.phil () gmail com (Phil Bedard) [Sat 13 Feb 2016, 01:40 CET]:I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free peering between large content providers and eyeball networks there are written agreements in place. I would have no clue on the volume percentage but it's not going to be near 99%.It's much closer to 99% than to 50%, though.
Any reference on that? I¹m wondering who (if anyone) is formally measuring / tracking this and seeing the exact trend over time. Thanks Jason
Current thread:
- PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 10)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Fredrik Korsbäck (Feb 10)
- Message not available
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)
- Message not available
- re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)
- RE: PCH Peering Paper Phil Bedard (Feb 12)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Niels Bakker (Feb 12)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 16)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 16)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Bill Woodcock (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 17)
- re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)