A meta point:
DB> Except, of course, that's what evil nasty megacorp Verizon is
DB> (essentially) suggesting, and we hates the corporations, yes, precious :-)
This is needlessly snarky. You don't need to imply that the people who
disagree with you are Gollum, or have other various irrational hatreds and
fears -- just disagree with them. (Is my two cents anyway.)
Back to the issue:
DL> If there is congestion at a peering point, isn't it their
DL> responsibility to try and upgrade their side of the connection so that
DL> it's not congested any more?
DB> If I'm peering with L3, and they are constantly flooding the IX point,
DB> then I do an analysis of the traffic and see "oh you've got an abusive
DB> customer flooding us, make them stop", or I say "oh, that's valid
DB> traffic, but it's a LOT of it, and it's impacting the performance of
DB> other innocent traffic coming from L3", and I throttle it to protect
DB> the other traffic from damage. Maybe if I've got an economic incentive
DB> to do so, I upgrade the IX point to allow the greater capacity, but
DB> just as a college might not be willing to upgrade its ISP connection
DB> to improve Spotify performance, Verizon is similarly not so inclined
DB> to do so for the L3 connection.
These two together seem to get to the big question: What incentives to
various ISPs have to peer with each other in friendly ways? Why shouldn't
they fragment apart and compete for customers in non-interoperable ways?
-Josh ([email protected])
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
