|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Peering versus Transit
> If a "peer" at an EP is using more than that amount of > bandwidth, one might want to negotiate an exchange of > money. For example if A and B meet at an EP and are running > into the drop threshold because of the amount of traffic > being exchanged, the one with the screaming customers may > be asked to pay a certain amount of money per increment of > additional bandwidth. This may always be B's customers, > or it may flip-flop between A's customers and B's > customers over time, and thus should be considered a > business negotiation on both parties' part. I think Sean has summaried the arguments very well, and I agree with im in most respects. The issue as I see it is to be found in this paragraph above. Where a phone company exchanges traffic with another phone compnay and there is some form of settlement involved, this cannot apply to the IXs until some serious technology breakthroughs happen in terms of measurement of IP. The reason the telcos can figure out who owes what is because the routeing for both halves of the conversation are (a) symmetric and (b) you know who placed the call. In the Internet both parties are paying for their connection (I hope) and the distinction between who made the call and who is offering the service can only be made after quite some work. The source and destination ports are not enough. Also, does this mean that asymmetric routeing (the reason for multiple DS3s and hot-potato routeing) is a no no ? Are web sites like 800 numbers, in which case the called party should be charged... how do you hold this database... the list goes on and on. Just to add to the confusion... Regards, -- Peter Galbavy [email protected] @ Home phone://44/973/499465 in Wonderland http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/ snail://UK/NW1_6LE/London/21_Harewood_Avenue/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|