|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BBN/GTEI
[I really wasn't going to get involved in this mire, but this is too easy. Standard disclaimers abound.] > > Sure, but only the assymetry that results from BBN customers ASKING for more > > than they OFFER. > > Or is it the asymmetry that results from Exodus customers OFFERING more > than they ASK FOR? ...so now you are looking to dictate what business prodcuts/models someone uses? > other. Just because long distance phone calling introduced the purely > artificial concept that the initiator of the transaction pays for it does > not mean we should analyze IP traffic in the same way. "Artificiality" applies in the telephone model, where the circuit is set up and you can't/won't/don't know about the payload [which end talks more? is there a lot of silence? does the quality suck?]. Packet switching shows a lot about the payload [packet sizes, packet frequency, and retransmissions] from both sides. > In the past we have > considered the initiator of IP transactions to be irrelevant and had > no-charge peering for networks that basically send a similar number of > bytes to what they receive. > > So what do we do when that is no longer the case? The requests handled by pointy-clicky-"dub dub dub"; great wodges of traffic being burned on lossy protocols. The traffic doesn't spontaneously decide to slam down pipes to non-path-discovery Windoze dialups. The humans behind the dialups asked for something (albeit, they had no forwarnings about adverts, pictures, applets, etc etc.). Back to life, Joe -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <[email protected]>
|