North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Peering Table Question
- From: Christian Nielsen
- Date: Tue Apr 25 23:40:45 2000
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, David Diaz wrote:
> 2nd I think this traffic balance issue is ridiculous and always have.
> If you have eyeballs they are paying for connectivity to the net,
> specifically content. In the rest of telecom those that initiate
> the request get billed so here eyeballs should be billed... and they
> are by their ISPs. If the network infrastructure is so expensive to
> maintain that the eyeball ISP losses money then they changed the
> incorrect rate. 1 word here caching. If the eyeball backbone wants
> to save network capacity and costs dropping some caches and give Doug
> H a call and add Cidera feed. If your network design is such that
> you cannot provide this caching service you better plan for it on
> your next build. The obligation of the big content
> backbones/websites should be to have multiple sites or inverse
> caching at the exchange cities to eliminate an undo burden on the
> eyeball backbones.
or why dont you require both to peer in 4 - 6 places in the US and honor meds
both ways. This way, each is carrying traffic on their network. Of course the
bigger providers dont want this as they would lose losts of $$ from all the
payments they get for 'transit'.
like i have said in the past, i dont think the DOJ or soon the EU is going to
be happy once they find out what really goes on with peering...