On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Laird Popkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This raises an interesting issue - should optimization of p2p traffic (P4P) > be based on "static" network information, or "dynamic" network information. > It's certainly easier for ISP's to provide a simple network map that > real-time network condition data, but the real-time data might be much more > effective. Or even if it's not real-time, perhaps there could be "static" > network maps reflecting conditions at different times of day? >
100% solution + 100% more complexity vs 80% solution ? It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a network sense. Something like: 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... P4P is an interesting move by Verizon, tin-hat-ness makes me think it's a method to raise costs on the direct competitors to VZ (increase usage on access-links where competitors mostly have shared access-links) but I agree with Harrowell that it's sure nice to see VZ participating in Internet things in a good way for the community. (though see tin-hat perhaps it's short-term good and long-term bad.../me puts away hat now) -Chris _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
