North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Limited peering battle (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
- From: Sean Donelan
- Date: Sat Jun 02 03:54:56 2001
On Fri, 01 June 2001, Mike Leber wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > So, can anyone explain why C&W, UUNET or Genuity care about traffic
> > balance, other than to limit competition by providers who are better
> > at attracting particular types of customers than them?
> You have the cart before the horse (effect before cause), there are really
> two principles that come before the example policy effect above. They are
I understand that, however my interest was much more limited than launching
an incindary device into another peering battle.
I'm want to understand why a 1.5:1, or 2:1 balance is required. What
technical purpose does it achieve.
I've asked folks from large and small providers about this, and they've
told me a variety of reasons. But none of the reasons, so far, have held
technical merit in the final analysis. There were always alternatives
which did not require maintaining a inverse market share balance between
ANS used to require cold potato routing, is it time to bring it back?
I know, provider-based CIDR makes that difficult.