Matthew, There is a difference between what should be philosophically and what happened with Level 3 which is a contractual issue.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com>wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow < > morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net> wrote: > > > in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential > > ISP > > > to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect > > peering > > > ratios to be symmetric > > > > is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about > > offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be > > 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the > > traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into > > some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. > > > > Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly > > germaine to the conversation at hand. > > > > > Traffic asymmetry across peering connections > was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg, > if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic > went asymmetric, the refusals to augment > capacity kicked in, and congestion became > a problem. > > I've seen the same thing; pretty much every > rejection is based on ratio issues, even when > offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the > home market for the users. > > If the refusals hinged on any other clause > of the peering requirements, you'd be right; > but at the moment, that's the flag networks > are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour. > So, it may be very "1990", but unfortunately > that seems to be the year many people in > the industry are mentally stuck in. :( > > Matt >
