|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
> p.s. The fact that the sender of traffic should be paying some portion > of the resulting costs is not a surprise to anyone; many of the > content companies that I've spoken to believe they already are > paying more as traffic increases, and were quite surprised to > find that it doesn't actually make it to the networks which > bear the brunt of the traffic carriage. > > p.p.s. As noted, departure from shortest-exit is also another approach > which may provide some answers to this situation, but that's a > different topic which deserves its own thread. This message > is simply noting that settling for peering traffic is quite > viable, despite assertions to the contrary regarding traffic > generation. As long as you're billing the senders on your > network for increased usage (and handing it off shortest-exit), > increased traffic is good thing. > Except, John, that you ignore the fact that you have basically required anyone who wants to put a high-bandwidth server on your network to accept other people writing a blank check for them, regardless of the legitimacy of the hits they receive. I doubt the customer would be too happy if your peering policy suddenly tripled their bill. Owen
|