The Folly of Peering Ratios
Hi all - At the Peering BOF X at NANOG 35 in Los Angeles last week we held a debate on the rationality of Peering Traffic Ratios as a Peering Partner selection criteria. During the debate both sides made good points, but interestingly, some of the strongest arguments on both sides of the debate came out during the QA and during coffee break/bar/beer-n-gear ad hoc debates that followed. I have classified roughly six arguments culled from these discussion, attributed where I remembered the source, along with the corresponding counter arguments that seemed to collectively reveal the folly of peering traffic ratios as a peering discriminator. I have documented and diagrammed these arguments in the form of a white paper titled, of course, The Folly of Peering Traffic Ratios. I am looking for some people to review the paper, provide feedback, better defend an argument on either side, provide anecdotes, whatever you believe would help make the paper an accurate portrayal of the arguments on both sides of this issue. If you have the time to let me walk you through the paper over the phone (about 20 minutes) and discuss, that would be the best - I find I get the most feedback this way. I'll send out a note to the list when I have done enough walk throughs to feel comfortable enough that I have things about right and that the draft can be circulated more broadly. Here is the current summary from The Folly of Peering Ratios v0.5: -- snip --- Summary In the heated discussions surrounding this topic there were six flavors of arguments put forth to support peering traffic ratios as a peering selection criteria. Argument #1 - I don't want to haul your content all over the world for free. This argument is countered with the observation that, whether peered with a content heavy or an access heavy ISP, the ISP is being paid by its customers for providing access to that traffic. It is not hauling the traffic for free. Argument #2 – OK, but there is massive asymmetry here. Look at how many bits miles I have to carry your content, while you have only to deliver your content across the exchange point. Regardless of whether peered with content or access the load on your network is about the same; the access or content traffic has to traverse your network to get to your customers. This is an argument perhaps for more geographically distributed points of interconnection. Argument #3 – As an Access Heavy ISP, I don't want to peer with Content Heavy ISPs, because doing so will screw up my peering traffic ratios with my other peers. The analysis and diagrammed traffic flows in this paper prove this assertion true, however, the argument is circular: 'Peering Traffic Ratios are valid criteria because they support Peering Traffic Ratios with others.' Argument #4 – I want revenue for carrying your packets. While this argument is business rational, peering traffic ratios are a poor indicator of the value derived from the interconnection. Argument #5 – My backbone is heavily loaded in one direction – I don't have $ to upgrade the congested part of my core without a corresponding increase in revenue. This loading problem can better be solved with better traffic engineering, with more resources for the core or by temporarily postponing all additional peering until the core is upgraded. Introducing a peering traffic ratio requirement is at best a temporary solution and signals a poorly managed network – a bad image for peers and transit customers alike. Argument #6 – I don't want to peer with anyone else. Peering ratios help me systematically keep people out. This is an understandable (although seldom articulated out loud) argument but is a poor defense for peering traffic ratios per se since it is an arbitrary discriminator; one could just as well have specified the size of the backbone core, the market capitalization or debt structure, or an extremely large number of distributed interconnect points. Peering Traffic Ratios emerged years ago in the Internet as a peering candidate discriminator, but appear to have their roots in the PSTN world. Ratios reflect the telephony settlement model of buying and selling minutes, where the traffic difference between in and out is used for settling at the end of the month. However, the Peering Traffic Ratio discriminator model for the Internet interconnection fails because traffic ratios are a poor indicator of relative value derived from the interconnect. If you have time to review the paper (about 6 pages), please send me a note. Thanks! Bill -- // // William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix // GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635 // Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton
Re: ratios
In the referenced message, Dean S Moran said: Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it? It would be more responsible if they had a minimum number of fully aggregated (by origin-as) routes This would, hopefully, prevent folks from merely deaggregating to meet the number. Hopefully, that number would be significantly less than 5000. Some time back, I look a look at all routes with origin as701, and came up with: 2165 total routes 1846 routes after removing more-specifics (not even going the extra step to aggregate what was left) 319 pointless more-specifics (same origin, so no additional path information) 14% of routes originated by as701 are entirely chaff I emailed uunet, asking why it was they were leaking all these wasted routes at me, but didn't get a response. I took a look at 3561 based upon that same snapshot and see: 342 total routes originated by 3561 324 routes after removing more-specifics (not even going the extra step to aggregate what was left) 18 pointless more-specifics (same origin, so no additional path information) 5% of routes originated by as3561 are entirely chaff so, as3561 appears to be less sloppy, but if their policy is worded minimum of X routes, it definately encourages sloppiness.
Re: ratios
All of that changed when CW depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do? --Michael - Original Message - From: Dean S Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:42 PM Subject: RE: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Your quality of life is affected by being turned down for peering how? Who said I was turned down for peering? When I buy a pipe from an internet provider, I buy it under the assumption that I'm going to be able to see the entire internet from it. I know that probably any given moment, that some small part of the internet is going to be inaccesible due to outages or routing loops, but I do not expect to lose a path to another provider for days because my upstream decides to bully the competition. I depended on, and had customers who depended on, being able to reach AS174, and for years this just worked so there was no need to multihome. Short outages, or even overnight outages never hurt us, so single-homing was the way to go. All of that changed when CW depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? Dean Steve _ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
Re: ratios
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Michael Painter wrote: All of that changed when CW depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do? Build resilience into his single homed, single point of failure non-redundant network. Steve --Michael - Original Message - From: Dean S Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:42 PM Subject: RE: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Your quality of life is affected by being turned down for peering how? Who said I was turned down for peering? When I buy a pipe from an internet provider, I buy it under the assumption that I'm going to be able to see the entire internet from it. I know that probably any given moment, that some small part of the internet is going to be inaccesible due to outages or routing loops, but I do not expect to lose a path to another provider for days because my upstream decides to bully the competition. I depended on, and had customers who depended on, being able to reach AS174, and for years this just worked so there was no need to multihome. Short outages, or even overnight outages never hurt us, so single-homing was the way to go. All of that changed when CW depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? Dean Steve _ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
Title: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios) I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do? Build resilience into his single homed, single point of failure non-redundant network. Steve = Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call. I think we all assume that our provider guarantees us some sort of total reachability. Near as I can figure, they do not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a reachability guarantee? James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation So I'm top posting. Sue me.
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
JS Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:48:25 -0400
JS From: James Smith
JS I think we all assume that our provider guarantees us some
JS sort of total reachability. Near as I can figure, they do
JS not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on
JS percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation
JS remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a
JS reachability guarantee?
iirc memory=bad
Wasn't there a small russian ISP that had no access to _1_ during
the mid- or late-90s?
And didn't some ugly peering battles between 701 and 3561 back
when 3561 was MCI cause some { severely hampered | loss of }
connectivity between the two?
/iirc
Help me out... I wasn't following routing and such very closely
back then. But it seems that none of this is new, just another
iteration of the same...
--
Eddy
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to
be blocked.
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
H maybe there should be a list of peering policies site a la Jared's NOC page. BTW, has anybody else tried calling the toll-free Sprint NOC number listed on puck.nether.net? Is this a new alternative to on-hold muzak? ;-) (To prevent slashdotting said INWATS line without totally blowing the punchline... let's just say one needs a credit card handy to continue the call.) -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
Title: RE: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios) -Original Message- From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios) snip H maybe there should be a list of peering policies site a la Jared's NOC page. == Interesting idea. Include verifiable user comments as to what the policy actually is as exemplified by actual practice vs. what they say it is (or should be)... James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation
RE: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
JS Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:26:13 -0400 JS From: James Smith JS H maybe there should be a list of peering JS policies site a la Jared's NOC page. JS Interesting idea. Include verifiable user comments as to what JS the policy actually is as exemplified by actual practice JS vs. what they say it is (or should be)... ...which would be interesting, except NDAs[1] and grandfathered- in ASNs that don't meet the requirements, yet haven't been depeered, might make things interesting... [1] IANAL, but how can something public be considered a trade secret protected by NDA? Perhaps the exact peering arrangements are not public, but routing information is at least semi-public. (Any downstream can identify peers. Or if a net participates in a route server a la oregon-ix, then they're pretty much disclosing interconnect lists.) -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
James Smith wrote (on May 10): Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call. It's worth pointing out it's not always a technical decision. Partcularly when things are tight, the bean-counters and other senior management tend to shy away from redunancy and resilience often in favour of insurance policies and controlled risk. Similar business-decisions are what cause those networks to not peer. Whether fair or not doesn't matter. Big companies are big businesses. Big businesses like to remain big. They all have debt and thus need revenue. A common view is that a peer is the loss of a potential customer. Drop all your peers, gain some potential customers. (Sprint said this to me in those words once) While nobody has tried to take a Tier-1 to court for what could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of connectivity to *your* network is so small from their perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain, they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience, and having seen this done in black and white). The words used are along the lines of that is what happens when you connect to a non-tier-1, like us. Just for reference, the European Peering Policy for one of the previously mentioned carriers in this thread requires the announcement of 900+ /19's from seperate LIR assignments, as well as the usual N-points connected, M-bps transfered etc requirements. I'm under NDA so can't say more. needless to say, we don't peer with them, and I don't buy transit from them either, on principle. We calculated that at the time only 5 IP providers in Europe (that were not US owned networks) would meet that 900+ /19's requirement. Chris.
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
CL Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:29:23 +0100 CL From: Chrisy Luke [ snipped ] CL While nobody has tried to take a Tier-1 to court for what CL could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers CL will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of CL connectivity to *your* network is so small from their CL perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain, CL they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience, CL and having seen this done in black and white). The words used CL are along the lines of that is what happens when you connect CL to a non-tier-1, like us. Now, as much as I'd not expect CW to peer with us, look at PSINet. Were they small? What about EXDS? Those peering paths were to provide better-insert various metrics to the eyeballs. I'd argue that both are/were significant. And as much as it's a good thing to not require everyone to peer with everyone (n^2 would be out of control), it would also be bad if the entire world depended on a single ASN. I agree that a line must be drawn, but disagree with where certain carriers draw the line. But I suppose that we're insignificant to them, and they probably don't even care about selling _transit_ to someone so small. [Not that this is inherently bad... just be up front about it like L3, and tell people what the minimum is.] I guess the CW slogan is also rubbing me the wrong way. Delivering on the Internet promise seems to imply that traffic gets there reliably. ;-) [Note that I'm impressed with the good community support... not just bashing CW.] Note that this is not peculiar to the Internet. Look at the EDI world, and what happened to ICC with Sterling and GE. _That_, IMHO, is a much more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior. -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: ratios
I actually think this is put very well. I know that in my case I'd prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy. For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet for example. I realize there are many other factors including relyability, cost, company stability etc. but one consideration ior me is their willingness to peer and grow their networks. I wouuld think especially on this list our arguments should stick to being as strictly technical as possible and not venture in to the personal. Easier said than done I realize. However, strong arguments for using networks with open peering policies are more meaningful than ridiculing large carriers who don't wish to peer. The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically acknowledge that fact. If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should just not have a peering policy. On Thu, 9 May 2002, Daniel Golding wrote: I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements from these carriers serve two functions - to prevent new peers, and to depeer those who are felt to be not worthy. And even the latter is tenuous - most bilateral peering agreements allow for cancellation at will for absolutely no cause. Peering is a business relationship. Refusing to peer does not make one bad, nor does it damn the peering coordinator to eternal damnation. It also does not reflect on those who work for the carrier in other roles, especially those brave enough to post to NANOG on peering matters. Some folks take exception to having ANY sort of peering requirements, like the person who told me that they thought a carrier that required bicoastal peering and an OC-12 network has peering requirements worse than UUNET. Peering requirements, especially rational ones like multiple location peering, are not in any way bad. If you don't approve of a carrier's peering policy, you have a couple options... You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful effect. You can turn away their sales folks, the next time they try to sell you transit. However, if you say I won't buy transit from you, because you won't peer from me, don't expect any sort of reaction other than goodbye, because there is no lost revenue potential - you would never have purchased transit in any case. However, if you say because you won't peer with other large networks, it decreases the quality of your network, so I won't buy your transit. They may be more effective. However, that needs to happen much more than the sales people hear I won't buy transit from you because I'm a peer. You can take it out on individuals who you feel are responsible, by refusing to do business with them or hire them in the future. This is very tricky, as all employees of a carrier are not in any way responsible for a carrier's peering policy. Of course, if you get some weasel who comes in for a job interview, with senior peering engineer on their resume, and brags about his role in depeering, say, PSI, then I suppose such persons deserve what they get. However, it's rare that this comes up. Additionally, punishing folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive. I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity. - Daniel Golding -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ratios Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it? And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked a couple weeks ago. I don't think this policy is for real - if they actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape. Here's few more stats I just checked: Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes -Ralph
RE: ratios
At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote: I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity. - Daniel Golding Oh come now Dan, that is too much of a logical decision for this mailing list :) -Steve
RE: ratios
I guess one of the concerns it the definition of peer. The policies as I read bhem by cnw and uunet seem to be so overly restrictive that none of the newer carriers will meet them. I've litterllly, not from uunet and or cw but from other carriers received responses to peering requests Well your to small to peer but we have great transit pricing in the areas you requested. This is after I offered to meet them at the three east, west, and central mae's, a coupee if diverse paix's, and Chicago. If the concern is economics than peering ss much as possible and in a less restrictive manner makes the most sense. The target here is to provide the best possible service to customers which certainly ocould be other carriers, but are most likely more other end users. If performance is better it will in many cases be an easier sell. More than a few times prospective customers were very concerned with peering and interconnection. But then again I was up against uunet in a play to get a customer and uunet promised this customer they could globally route and announce to its peers /30's or longer. :) I certainly couldn't make such claims. I'm mentioning this because it seems in all companies, not just uunet claims are maid but frequently not backed up by technical good sense. I guess its like most things there are many approaches and certainly not everyone will agree to each approach. I just can't see cases when not peering is better assuming the basic requirements are met to insure proper technical performance. On Thu, 9 May 2002, David Barak wrote: On Thu, 9 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote: The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically acknowledge that fact. If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should just not have a peering policy. come now, UU and CW both have a substantive number of peers. Their policies tend toward equating the routing concept of peer with the english-language concept of peer meaning equal. The whole argument is that settlement-free-interconnection is only worthwhile if both parties benefit more than they would lose if they did not interconnect. The economics of this will tend to encourage smaller providers to be more liberal with peering agreements, and larger providers to be less liberal. Does this still seem unfair? David Barak WorldCom Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? - Juvenal
RE: ratios
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ratios Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it? And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked a couple weeks ago. I don't think this policy is for real - if they actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape. Here's few more stats I just checked: Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes -Ralph
Re: ratios
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:39:41AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One interesting note is that UUNET does peer with CW itself in number of new locations, for example big peering point for both of them is Equinix in San Jose. Since I can't imagine those companies going there just to peer with each other, they must have number of other peers their as well... Equanix people - do you want to comment on this? No, thats why they went there (well that and to sell transit). :) It's a lot cheaper and easier to get a crossconnect done within 48 hours then it is to get a metro OC12. Multiply that by the number of people they do peer with, and it adds up to a lot. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
RE: ratios
Chris Parker wrote: At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote: You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful effect. It informs other networks of the actions taken by said carrier. Od carrier. Other networks may in turn change *their* business decisions based on that information. Right! With the (mostly) unregulated nature of the internet as it stands right now, sometimes this is the only recourse we have when a provider does something stupid. Hopefully it'll cause said provider to wake up and smell the roses, but with CW I doubt it. They're too egotistical to cave in to public pressure. Additionally, punishing folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive. What's so rational about asking for 5000 routes? Rational is a pretty subjective concept. :) Overly restrictive covenants wrt housing have been struck down in the past. One could make an analogy to overly restrive peering agreements if one wanted to go down that particular rat hole... I actually hope it happens, real soon. I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity. How can I not take it personally when this person's business decision directly and immediately affected mine? Not to mention my quality of life, which is still recovering. Dean _ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
ratios
Just a note here I think needs to be said. In my case at least my experiences with peering and working with other networks has been extremely positive. I had the pleasure of for example having a loop in to Paix Pao1 and that was a very positive thing for my network and frankly business. Most of the carriers I spoke to were great and very responsive with the exception of the one I mentioned before and no it wasn't uunet or cnw.I have peered obviously in other facilities as well but I mentioned the Paix because in my case the impression was they went out of their way to be helpful and it was very positive. I think that its perhaps the sign of a larger problem that the public internet is basically help by one or two large companies ie UU and CW who don't wish to play with the restof the net but not much can be done about that and no I'm not going to equate this ti Microsoft:). In the end let's hope market forces and economics win out and we'll see.
RE: ratios
| I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen Tough. Sean. (who do you blame for losing alot of credibility? aliens?)
Re: ratios
SG Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 10:30:21 -0700 (PDT) SG From: Scott Granados SG I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone SG could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine SG elegibility to peer? I have heard that some carrers SG especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in SG fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring SG equal use of the peer? Ask Mr. Google or Mrs. Archives. Hints: * Traffic is often asymmetric. If I browse Web pages, I receive far more traffic than I send. * Routing... hot potato or cold potato? * Ramifications of requiring (or not) consistent adverts at different locations. It boils down to attempting to make the peering equally beneficial to both parties. I don't necessarily agree with (nor inherently object to) the reasoning, but that's the idea. I suspect that this was discussed last June during the 174/3561 incident. Keep in mind that the peering mindset is: I'll buy transit if I can't peer. I'll peer if I can't sell transit. I'll sell transit if I can. -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: ratios
Scott: Traffic ratios are one of the many parameters that ensure equality and a mutual benefit between networks in a settlement free peering relationship. Have a look at our peering policy at www.cw.com/peering. It will provide you with some information on peering with large networks. Regards Peter Jansen Global Peering Cable Wireless Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Granados [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ratios I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine elegibility to peer? I have heard that some carrers especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring equal use of the peer? Thanks Scott
Re: ratios
dig through the nanog archives. you will see a few brief discussions on the peering/ratio topic. On Tue, 7 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote: I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine elegibility to peer? I have heard that some carrers especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring equal use of the peer? Thanks Scott /rf
