On 05/01/2012 07:07 PM, Steven Noble wrote: > While I can understand having some peering requirements, the goal of any CDN > should be to have the best reach possible. Without knowing if this is PI > peering or just across a IX it is hard to judge what their (or your) costs > are. If it is IX it would seem irrational to cut off someone who you are > doing meaningful traffic with.
This is over an IXP, I should've pointed that out. >> ----8<---- >> In this particular case I'm talking about >=600Mbps of traffic send out by >> Limelight to "my" eyeballs, not mentioning their fairly small footprint in >> Germany in comparison to other CDNs. >> > > 600Mbps would appear to be meaningful traffic. Without the other side of the > story it's hard to get a full grip on the situation. It is always possible > that these are business (not network) decisions where there is a certain > level of income expected from a division. > >> These points aside, we are talking about a Content *Delivery* Network here. >> There are CDNs out there who burn to improve their customer experience (both >> the content creators and the content receiver) at high cost. >> Having a Tier1 attitude and telling eyeball networks with <1Gbps of traffic >> exchanged to bugger off or pay is not one of the ways to improve this. > > I do agree here, again on an IX level. They still have the choice to > backhaul to you or hot potato your traffic wherever they feel like it. From > the data you have provide it appears to be a lose-lose situation to de-peer > you. > >> >> At the end of the day I'm going to charge CDNs who want to deliver their >> customers content to my eyeballs and make me pay (about 2USD per Mbps, with >> a minimum of 1Gbps). >> > > That may be what they are doing "if at all possible try to monetize it". Agreed on all points. There's at least nothing technical which needs solving.
