Is internal DNS considered to be in the same realm? I agree with you, but I'm not totally sure there is a straight forward answer here.
Device connected to internet, sends query (same as would be over the internet) to local DNS service. Is that an Internet transaction? On 8/15/13 1:10 PM, "Leo Bicknell" <bickn...@ufp.org> wrote: > >On Aug 15, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: > >> My laptop at home is an edge node under the definition above, despite >>being behind a NAT. My home NAS is as well. When I back up my laptop to >>my NAS over my home network, that traffic would be counted as "Internet" >>traffic by your definition. >> >> I have a feeling that does not come close to matching the mental model >>most people have in their head of "Internet traffic". But maybe I'm >>confused. > >It matches my mental model. Your network is connected to the Internet, >that's traffic between two hosts, it's Internet traffic. > >Let's take the same two machines, but I own one and you own one, and >let's put them on the same network behind a NAT just like your home, but >at a coffee shop. Rather than backups we're both running bit torrent and >our two machines exchange data. > >That's Internet traffic, isn't it? Two unrelated people talking over the >network? They just happen to be on the same LAN. > >My definition was arbitrary, so feel free to argue another arbitrary >definition is more useful in some way, but for my arbitrary definition >you've applied the rules correct, and I would argue it's the right way to >think about things. In a broad english sense "IP packets traversing an >Internet connected network are Internet traffic". > >It's all graph cross sections. "Peering" volume totals a set of >particular links in the graph, omitting traffic from your laptop to your >file server, or your NAS to your laptop. My model attempts to isolate >every edge on the graph, and generate the total sum of IP traffic >crossing any Internet connected network, which would always include all >forms of local caches (Akamai, Google, Netflix) and even your NAT. I >think that's a more interesting number, and a number that's easier to >count and defend than say a peering or "backbone" number. > >-- > Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > > > > > >
