Let's not kid ourselves, the transit providers are just as greedy. Even the tier 2 ones (minus HE). My favorite is when they turn down your request because you have an out of band circuit in a remote pop with them. As if we're stuffing 800G of traffic down a 1G circuit that's never seen 100K of traffic on it. Or the "It would jeopardize our peering agreements with other providers" ... followed by a call from one of their sales guys the next day.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Siegel, David <david.sie...@level3.com>wrote: > Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have > a way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics > vendor is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that > each party can calculate not only how much traffic they carry for each > peer, but how far. > > Dave > > -- > 520.229.7627 cell > > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:23 PM, "Benson Schliesser" <bens...@queuefull.net> > wrote: > > > > > On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >> > >> That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in > system that existed at that time. However today what you describe no > longer really makes any sense. > >> > >> While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric > routing, your theory is based on the idea that a content site exists in one > location, and does not want to optimize the user experience. > >> ... > >> > >> A much better business arrangement would be to tie a sliding fee to the > ratio. Peering up to 2:1 is free. Up to 4:1 is $0.50/meg, up to 6:1 is > $1.00/meg, up to 10:1 is $1.50 a meg. Eyeball network gets to recover > their long haul transport costs, it's cheaper to the CDN than buying > transit, > > > > Agreed that CDN, traffic steering, etc, changes the impact of routing > protocols. But I think you made my point. The sending peer (or their > customer) has more control over cost. And we don't really have a good proxy > for evaluating relative burdens. > > > > That's not to suggest that peering disputes are really about technical > capabilities. Nor fairness, even... > > > > Cheers, > > -Benson > > > > > > > >
