Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: BBN/GTEI

  • From: Karl Denninger
  • Date: Fri Aug 21 22:28:32 1998

On Fri, Aug 21, 1998 at 06:46:54PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > 
> > > > > In fact, what you're advocating is billing the sender for *solicited data*
> > > > > from the recipient's point of view! 
> > > > 
> > > > Not at all. I am advocating paying for transit. 
> > > 
> > > On the contrary.  
> > > 
> > > If I buy a DS1 for transit from your network, I'm expecting the person I pay
> > > to provide transit - ALL OF THE TRANSIT.
> > 
> > Of course, and I agree with you 100%. But I was not talking about a
> > transit customer. I was talking about a peer whose traffic interchange is
> > asymmetric and who therefore uses some regional transit in the other guy's
> > network. I'm saying that instead of slamming the door in his face and
> > telling him to buy transit, we need to have a scalable peering option that
> > is a blend.
> > 
> Ah, but you were talking about traffic from said content provider _TO_ a
> transit customer, no?  The point here is that when I buy a T1 from provider A,
> I expect him to get my traffic to/from the ENTIRE internet, not the Internet,
> except those providers that choose not to purchase transit and are not
> symmetrical in their traffic flows.
> 
> > Maybe I am headed in the wrong direction with this but I do believe we
> > need a better solution for peering with asymmetric peers that reduces the
> > barriers to entry to $$$. Right now there are barriers to entry that
> > probably will not pass the scrutiny of the DOJ.
> > 
> That may be.  However, the $$$ methods you are talking about are likely
> to bill the wrong end of the connection.  You have repeatedly proposed
> a solution which allows the customers of transit provider A who purchase
> transit from transit provider A to write a blank check for provider B
> to provider A to cover the costs of said transit customer receiving
> content they request off of servers hosted by provider B.
> 
> Owen

Exactly.

The correlary of this is that I can come up with a dozen ways without even
breaking a sweat to make DAMN sure your flows are asymmetric in the wrong
way (such that I get the check) no matter HOW you design this.

In a recent discussion on this point, I said "sure, I'll take that deal"
(the net source of traffic pays) with anyone.  And the day after you sign
up I will set up an Internet backup service that has a nice little applet
that automatically backs up the fixed disks of your customers to my servers
- once every, oh, 5-6 minutes.... and tunes itself to precisely fill your
pipe to me while being VERY conservative in what it needs to send back.  

And of course, such service would be free to your customers, as would be 
the software for their machines.... along with a strong suggestion that they
leave their systems on all the time just to make sure that NO file of theirs
is ever lost :-)

Anyone who tries to impose this model WILL lose - either by the other end
saying "bite me"  (and their customers consequently leaving) or by exactly 
the above type of response-by-subterfuge such that the imposer will be the 
one who ends up writing the checks.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
			     | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.