On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net> wrote: > > Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM: > >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net> wrote: >>> >>> in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential >>> ISP >>> to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect >>> peering >>> ratios to be symmetric >> >> is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about >> offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be >> 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the >> traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into >> some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. >> >> Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly >> germaine to the conversation at hand. > > I agree about the term being passe ...and that it never applied to ISPs > ...and that peering is about cost reduction, reliability, and performance.
ok. > It seems to me that many CDNs or content providers want to setup peering > relationships and are willing to do so at a cost to them in order to bypass > "the internet middle men". But I mention traffic ratios because some folks 'the internet middle men' - is really, it seems to me, 'people I have no business relationship with'. There's also no way to control the capacity planning process with these middle-men, right? Some AS in the middle of my 3-AS-way conversation isn't someone I can capacity plan with :( -chris > in this discussion seem to be using it as justification for not peering. But > hey, why peer at little or no cost if they can instead hold out and possibly > peer at a negative cost? > > --Blake