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

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
> truisms.

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
providers.  

ANS used to require cold potato routing, is it time to bring it back?
I know, provider-based CIDR makes that difficult.






Discussion Communities


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


Merit Network, Inc.