I am told that
1) The set of traffic allowed is more nuanced and varied than just the
two categories of transit and peer.
2) If I have understand your description properly, it looks similar to
the frequent "valley free" assumption. And there are multiple papers
that make it clear that the actual paths are not "valley free". (Sorry,
I do not have pointers to the papers. I am not actually a researcher.)
Yours,
Joel
On 3/5/14, 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the packet forwarding paths, and the money
exchanges, are more complex than the picture you painted. Your picture
matches the general theory. However, I have repeatedly been told that the
reality does not match that theory.
Hi Joel,
I'll state that the settlement fees involved in common peering
arrangements (peering as defined in my post) are irrational, couched
in the language of fairness but based entirely on what the
participants believe they can get away with. I have taken that into
consideration with the structures I'll propose for procedural
aggregation.
Are you aware of any other specific divergence between the financial
structure I described and the reality on the ground? What is it?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
