On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Leo Bicknell <bickn...@ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:45:29PM -0500, Jerry Dent
> wrote:
>> Can be for the end users if they wind up on a less direct network path.
>
> "Direct" is not the only measure.
>
> I would take a 4-hop, 10GE, no packet loss path over a 1-hop, 1GE,
> 5% packet loss path any day of the week.
>
> "Shorter" {hops, latency, as-path} does not mean a higher quality end
> user experience.
>
I was using "Direct" as a generic term. And if the issue was link
performance, company A would have sent company B a "shape up or we'll
de-peer" message rather than a "pay up or we'll de-peer" message.
