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: Peering Table Question

  • From: I Am Not An Isp
  • Date: Thu Apr 20 04:48:29 2000


At 01:18 AM 4/20/00 -0600, Forrest W. Christian wrote:

>But that isn't the case. We live in a world where both the hosters and
>the accessors are paying for their access. Any settlement based in that
>system will be unfair as it is almost impossible to put a different value
>on each end of the link. Who's to say for a given AS whether inbound or
>outbound is more important?

It is not "inbound" or "outbound" per se, it is the amount of traffic and how far you have to carry it.

Simplistic example: Network A hosts big web sites. Network B has a gazillion dial-up users. The two networks peer at MAE-East and MAE-West. The web sites are in San Jose, the dial-up users are in DC.

Typical TCP flow looks like this: 1500 byte packet goes from web server to MAE-West on Network A, then transfers to Network B (because of "hot potato" routing) and comes across the country to DC destined for dialup user. Then a 64 byte ACK goes from DC to MAE-East on Network B, then transfers to Network A where it rides to San Jose.

In Other Words: Network B is carrying 1500 byte packets 3000 miles, and Network A is carrying 64 byte packets 3000 miles.

Sounds to me like an objective, technical reason to require one network to pay another even if they are just "peering". (Unless you are Randy, in which case one is now a "customer" of the other.)


Another solution would be to have Network A agree to carry the packet cross-country, relieving Network B of the need to carry big packets long distances. However, that requires useful Network B to give Network A useful MEDs.

Or maybe a bazillion other possible solutions.


In summary, there is nothing wrong with settlements to help off-set unequal network costs. It is a perfectly valid business practice. Nor, IMHO, does it make one network a "customer" of the other. The two networks are just trying to share everything equally, including network costs.


>- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) KD7EHZ

TTFN,
patrick

--
I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net
ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
"Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
(Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)






Discussion Communities


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


Merit Network, Inc.