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: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement

  • From: Patrick Greenwell
  • Date: Tue Aug 25 16:59:57 1998

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, John Curran wrote:

> At 03:15 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >>...
> >> Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs
> >> and the sending customer bears some of the costs.  In the case
> >> of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting
> >> traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up 
> >> bearing all of the costs.  
> >
> >Well, my understanding is (and someone correct me if I am wrong) in at
> >least the case of Exodus, they aren't using closest-exit. I can completely
> >understand requiring peers not use closest-exit. That seems somewhat
> >reasonable.
> 
> I was not referring to any particular peering relationship, 
> only problems brought about by closest-exit peering in the 
> presence of highly assymetric traffic.

Well, again correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can discuss
specific relationships. That's understandable, but the actions of BBN in
this specific case aren't clear to me as it does not fit the profile you
are describing.

> 
> >I haven't seen anything in these recent discussions to suggest that BBN
> >would be offering me a discount on inbound traffic since now the sender
> >would be paying for it.  
> 
> In the case of traffic coming coming from a peer network with wildly
> asymmetric traffic, the sending network is paying to offset the traffic
> assymetry; this returns the economics to that of a balanced peer or
> an on-net sender (which is the normal case today).

John, that does not at all address my statement. If the sender is paying
for requested data, is my bill going down? I'm fairly confident the
answer is no. 

So this leaves a situation where the sender will most likely have to
charge me for the requested data as well in order to cover costs, and I
end up paying twice. I am not particularly fond of paying for things
twice. Once is quite enough thanks.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell				         (800) 299-1288 v
			   Systems Administrator	 (925) 377-1212 v
	                         NameSecure		 (925) 377-1414 f    
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/






Discussion Communities


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


Merit Network, Inc.