Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes:
> My point is simply that the "your customers are getting more out of
> our network that our customers are" argument is bull. Your customers are
> paying you to carry their traffic over your network.
whenever you think you have a reasonable design, you can concept-test it for
the internet by asking, "what if six million people did this?"
i suspect that absent peering requirements, there would be a lot of WAN ISO-L2
and on-net ISO-L3 sold, a lot more ASN's on the hoof, and a bit less stability
in the BGP core.
since most of the transit ISO-L3 providers are also in the on-net ISO-L3 or
WAN ISO-L2 (or both) business, the end result would be the same people
getting paid the same amounts by the same other people, but called something
else than what we call it now.
maybe this would be better than "my network is bigger!", "no it ain't!", etc?
--
Paul Vixie
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)
Peering Ratios?
It is very timely that the upcoming NANOG Peering BOF X in Los Angeles
will have a debate on this very subject: Traffic Ratios - a valid
settlement metric or dinosaur from the dot.bomb past.
I'm sure the strongest arguments from these threads will be clearly
articulated (in a bullet point/summarized form I hope) during the
debate by the debaters. At the end of the day, as with most things
peering, the focus of this discussion is a meld of business and
technical interests. The heat we have witnessed is probably more
related to the friction of the business interests. We get very upset
about the notion of "fair" don't we. Perhaps in the few structured
minutes of the Peering BOF debate we can objectively hear both sides
of this argument and provide a little light as well.
Defending Traffic Ratios as a valid peering prereq: Peter Cohen
Attacking Traffic Ratios as peering prereq: Richard Steenbergen
Should be good fun.
Bill
On 10/10/05, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes:
>
> > > I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
> > > expensive to receive traffic than to send it.
>
> > It is? For everybody? For always? That's a BIG statement. Can
> > you justify?
>
>In those cases where it in fact is and there's nothing you can do
> about it,
> you need to accept it. You should not expect to be able to shift the burden
> of carrying your customers' traffic on your network to others. (The fact
> that you can sometimes bully or blackmail and get away with it doesn't
> justify it.)
>
> > > ...
> > > The question is whether the benefit to each side exceeds their cost.
>
> > Yea, verily. But I don't think you'll find a one-cost-fits-all
> > model. When
> > one person's costs are lower than another and they're doing
> > similar things,
> > it's often called "efficiency" or "competitiveness". (Just as
> > one example.)
>
>I heartily agree.
>
>My point is simply that the "your customers are getting more out of our
> network that our customers are" argument is bull. Your customers are paying
> you to carry their traffic over your network.
>
>There can certainly be legitimate peering disputes about where to peer
> and
> whether there are enough peering points. If someone wants you to peer with
> them at just one place, it would certainly be more cost-effective for you to
> reach them through a transit provider you meet in multiple places, for
> example. (You could definitely refuse settlement-free peering if it actually
> increases your costs to reach the peer.)
>
>I am not making the pie-in-the-sky argument that everyone should peer
> with
> everyone else. I am specifically rejecting the argument that a traffic
> direction imbalance is grounds for rejecting settlement-free peering. If
> your customers want to receive traffic and receiving is more expensive, then
> that's what they're paying you for.
>
>Again, carrying *your* customers' traffic over *your* network is what
> *your* customers are paying *you* for. If your customers want more expensive
> traffic, you should bear that greater burden.
>
>A traffic direction imbalance is not reasonable grounds for rejecting
> SFI.
> The direction your customers want their traffic to go is more valuable and
> it's okay if it costs more.
>
>DS
>
>
>
--
//
// William B. Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
// Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix
// GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635
// Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton
RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes:
> > I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
> > expensive to receive traffic than to send it.
> It is? For everybody? For always? That's a BIG statement. Can
> you justify?
In those cases where it in fact is and there's nothing you can do about
it,
you need to accept it. You should not expect to be able to shift the burden
of carrying your customers' traffic on your network to others. (The fact
that you can sometimes bully or blackmail and get away with it doesn't
justify it.)
> > ...
> > The question is whether the benefit to each side exceeds their cost.
> Yea, verily. But I don't think you'll find a one-cost-fits-all
> model. When
> one person's costs are lower than another and they're doing
> similar things,
> it's often called "efficiency" or "competitiveness". (Just as
> one example.)
I heartily agree.
My point is simply that the "your customers are getting more out of our
network that our customers are" argument is bull. Your customers are paying
you to carry their traffic over your network.
There can certainly be legitimate peering disputes about where to peer
and
whether there are enough peering points. If someone wants you to peer with
them at just one place, it would certainly be more cost-effective for you to
reach them through a transit provider you meet in multiple places, for
example. (You could definitely refuse settlement-free peering if it actually
increases your costs to reach the peer.)
I am not making the pie-in-the-sky argument that everyone should peer
with
everyone else. I am specifically rejecting the argument that a traffic
direction imbalance is grounds for rejecting settlement-free peering. If
your customers want to receive traffic and receiving is more expensive, then
that's what they're paying you for.
Again, carrying *your* customers' traffic over *your* network is what
*your* customers are paying *you* for. If your customers want more expensive
traffic, you should bear that greater burden.
A traffic direction imbalance is not reasonable grounds for rejecting
SFI.
The direction your customers want their traffic to go is more valuable and
it's okay if it costs more.
DS
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes:
> I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
> expensive to receive traffic than to send it.
It is? For everybody? For always? That's a BIG statement. Can you justify?
> ...
> The question is whether the benefit to each side exceeds their cost.
Yea, verily. But I don't think you'll find a one-cost-fits-all model. When
one person's costs are lower than another and they're doing similar things,
it's often called "efficiency" or "competitiveness". (Just as one example.)
--
Paul Vixie
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)
On Oct 8, 2005, at 7:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote: Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to not peer. I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more expensive to receive traffic than to send it. But it is not. It is more expensive to carry a large packet a long way than to carry a small packet a long way. Because of things like hot-potato routing, that frequently means the sender has less cost than the receiver, depending on where they meet. The rest of your argument is based on the premise that none of this is changeable. Which is clearly wrong. "Receivers" have been de-peering "Senders" for over half a decade. (I.e. "Forever" in Internet time.) These fights have been fixed by things like sending MEDs or intentionally recruiting customers to balance traffic for a long, long time. Of course, there is nothing wrong with an eyeball network saying "I'll carry it, gimme gimme!" But that doesn't mean they have to. Yes, that can't possibly work. It's way too simple and actually makes sense. No, it can't work because you assume things which are not necessarily factual. Not to mention, it doesn't make sense. -- TTFN, patrick
RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)
> Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from > mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to > not peer. I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more expensive to receive traffic than to send it. So yes, Cogent sends Level 3 more traffic than Level 3 sends them. But that's because Level 3's customers want to receive a lot of traffic, and it's just a fact about the Internet that it's expensive to receive traffic. Sorry. Bill your customers or design your business model appropriately. If I want to send you a packet and you want to receive that packet, I should expect to pay the costs of sending the packet to you and you should expect to pay the cost of receiving the packet from me. If one costs more than the other, well, that's the breaks. The benefit isn't always equal, why should the costs be? The question is whether the benefit to each side exceeds their cost. Yes, that can't possibly work. It's way too simple and actually makes sense. DS
