North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
- From: Tuomas Toivonen
- Date: Fri Aug 28 11:36:12 1998
On Thu, Aug 27, 1998 at 12:10:20PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 1998 at 12:41:54AM +0300, Tuomas Toivonen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 02:41:58PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > > None of this has ANYTHING to do with what the customer has purchased - which
> > > is TRANSIT TO THE ENTIRE INTERNET. Not just the parts that someone else
> > > will pay that same provider to communicate with.
> > CustA - NetA <-> NetB - CustB. Both customer are _buying_ for transit for the
> > whole source-destination path, but are _paying_ only for (in this case) half
> > of it. Customers share the costs, because providing service to each other is
> > considered beneficial. Therefore networks A and B peer if traffic is roughly
> > equal or exchange traffic with settlement fees if not.
> That's your view of the world, but its not reality.
Risking being repetitive I disagree with your basic assumption as the web
surfer being 'the cause' and therefore ruining the model of settlements
> Assume CUSTb is a web server, and CUSTa is a T1 connected client.
> CUSTa sends a TCP SYN, accepts an ACK, and transmits 40 bytes of a URL.
> CUSTb responds to the SYN, accepts and ACK (3-way handshake) and transmits,
> in direct response to the URL request, 200KB of data back to the CUSTa.
> Now, NETb has a net deficit of packets to NETa. NETa says "pay up or else"
> and demands a settlement from NETb; a settlement which NETb cannot collect
> on, as NETb has no means of assessing CUSTa, which is the cause of the
> traffic so generated.
This is where I don't agree with you. Yes, net-b certainly can't bill cust-a
(the web surfer) which is why it bills its own client cust-b (the web server).
Cust-b gladly pays because it has agreed to provide service to cust-a and
has calculated that whatever it pays to its service provider, net-b, will be
paid back by cust-a (perhaps site subscription fees or increased sales). So
net-b pays its settlement fees to net-a from cust-b's pockets.
Point is: the web surfer is only secodary cause to any traffic generated.
Primary cause is the web server providing content to be browsed. Web server
wants its content accessed and is willing to pay. (Funny thing is that the
web surfer is also willing to pay which is why Internet economics work and
it is heaven for marketing purposes.)
> NETb says "bite me", correctly perceiving that they should not allow
> arbitrary people to write blank checks on their accounts.
> NETa drops peering in response to the "bite me".
> NETa's customer drops their connectivity contract for a material breach of
> their agreement (deliberate interferance with their connectivity to NETb)
> and shops elsewhere.
> Who just lost by NETas activities here?
> That's what I thought.
> 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
firstname.lastname@example.org fishpool creations ltd