Re: cogent and henet not peering

[VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik () gmail com>]

yea whatever..

 its upto mike leber and dave schaeffer to decide. they can either 
accept or reject the solution

I have been always believing content creator/provider should pay 
expenses (at least excess traffic).

because they put their server in some datacenter and reach all of the 
internet.. their backbone expenses are less..

i can understand that todays datacenters including he.net are interested 
to participate in 200-300 IXPs.

well that acceptable. it should be considered too

so i would offer both companies 3 cent per mbps for excess traffic.

ok bye


21.08.2022 03:25 tarihinde Forrest Christian (List Account) yazdı:
> But that traffic was likely requested by and for the benefit of the 
> person the traffic is being sent to.
>
> I've always found the argument that the quantity of traffic is the 
> indicator of who should pay to be questionable.
>
> If I'm an end user on an eyeball user and request a big download or 
> streaming from a provider, isn't it me that caused that traffic to 
> flow?  One could argue that I am the one that needs to pay.
>
> On the other hand, one could argue that it's the provider of the 
> content that I requested that needs to pay, since it's their content 
> which is being distributed.
>
> When you get to peering between two providers it's almost impossible 
> to decide who needs to pay.    As I mentioned above, passing that 
> traffic is actually to the benefit of both providers.
>
> About the only settlement I could see is where one of the providers is 
> bearing most of the transport costs. For example a regional provider 
> only peering at one exchange point might expect some settlement costs 
> with a big international provider that is effectively carrying their 
> traffic both directions around the globe.  But the quantity of that 
> type of traffic is likely minimal in the grand scheme of things.    
>  Even then one might argue that connectivity to the small provider is 
> still valuable to the customers of the large provider.
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:32 AM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik () gmail com> wrote:
>
>     the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount.
>
>     as content networks are supposed to pay expenses.
>
>
>     what do you think?
>
>
>     19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı:
> >     The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables turn as
> >     to who pays?
> >
> >     The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying?
> >
> >     The network with more POPs gets paid?
> >
> >     The network with more downstream ASes gets paid?
> >
> >     Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6?
> >
> >
> >
> >     -----
> >     Mike Hammett
> >     Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> >     
> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> >     Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> >     
> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> >     The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> >     <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> >     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     *From: *"VOLKAN KIRIK" <volkirik () gmail com>
> >     <mailto:volkirik () gmail com>
> >     *To: *"Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk () gmail com> <mailto:rubensk () gmail com>
> >     *Cc: *nanog () nanog org, dschaeffer () cogentco com, peering () cogentco com
> >     *Sent: *Friday, August 19, 2022 10:22:00 AM
> >     *Subject: *Re: cogent and henet not peering
> >
> >     this is 50/50 situation. nobody has to peer for free.
> >
> >     but everyone can.
> >
> >     lets just say above 1:1 ratio he.net <http://he.net> pays their
> >     own ip transit price to cogent for paid peering excess amount and
> >     both sides monitor traffic
> >
> >     we can solve this issue by becoming middlemen worldwide...
> >
> >     both operators are cheap and they could all compete in quality.
> >
> >     level3 pays comcast reasonable (cheap) price (under NDA maybe?).
> >     why wouldnt mleber?
> >
> >     but to make it fair, as he.net <http://he.net> becomes ww tier-1
> >     operator day-by-day, lets just limit pricing to excess amount of
> >     traffic
> >
> >     thanks for reading
> >
> >     would appreciate your support
> >
> >
> >     19.08.2022 18:09 tarihinde Rubens Kuhl yazdı:
> >
> >         OTOH, knowing that Cogent loves splitting the global Internet is one
> >         good reason to not contract their services.
> >         I think they sell traffic to their private Intranet. Which is huge,
> >         but doesn't encompass the whole Internet.
> >
> >
> >         Rubens
> >
> >         On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM VOLKAN KIRIK<volkirik () gmail com>  <mailto:volkirik () gmail com>  wrote:
> >
> >             lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common withhe.net  <http://he.net>  for free.
> >
> >             BUT they will rate-limithe.net  <http://he.net>  links to previous month's 95th percentile upload or 
> > download (which is minimum) rate (each month)
> >
> >             to make ratio 1:1... to make downstream and upstream traffics fair...
> >
> >             okay?
> >
> >             fine?
> >
> >             come on people,
> >
> >             segmentation is bad.