On Nov 5, 2008, at 6:14 AM, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
Isn't it because the receiver is more likely to backhaul the traffic
further, due to hot-potato routing - at least in the case of large
networks with multiple points of interconnect?
That's the reason given. One can argue over whether it is the "real"
reason.
Since we just had a long and thorough discussion of this in the last
few days on this very list, perhaps the people who are wondering about
this could read the archives and not bother the other 10K of us on
something we answered _yesterday_?
--
TTFN,
patrick
On 5/11/2008, at 10:15 PM, Mark Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sure someone else must've seen it before.
Surely even assymetric peering agreements are mutually
beneficial... ISPs are also content providers, either directly or
through their customers... peering is going to have a flow-on
effect in terms of reducing the cost of offering content to the
people you peer with too, right?
Why all the focus on even or non-even-ness of up/down ratios in the
first place?
Mark.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Mike Lyon wrote:
Those with bad or uneven ratios then purchase transit and don't let
themselves get depeered...
On 11/1/08, Nelson Lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I mean is, how come networks like Teleglobe, Limelight, etc.
don't get
depeered by others, but Cogent does? I'm sure Cogent isn't the
only one with
bad ratios.
--
Hyundai to launch the i20 in India. Catch the exclusive preview on
ZigWheels.com
http://www.zigwheels.com/b2cam/newsDetails.action?name=Emb11_20080731&path=/INDT/News/Emb11_20080731&page=1&pagecount=2&utm_source=indmail&utm_medium=footer&utm_content=tracking&utm_campaign=Nletter_07oct2008_ZW
--
Sent from my mobile device
