North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
At 08:19 PM 08/24/1998 -0400, Alec H. Peterson wrote: >John Curran wrote: >> >> Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs >> and the sending customer bears some of the costs. In the case >> of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting >> traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up >> bearing all of the costs. > >I guess 'all the cost' means most of the cost, and 'no offsetting traffic' >means 'not much offsetting traffic'. (yes) >However, is the real problem here the traffic assymetry, or the fact that >all of the traffic is coming from one geographic location? Traffic Assymetry of traffic which requires (for lack of better term) "transport" to the destination. In the case of longest-exit routing, the traffic received doesn't require much transit, nor in the case of distributed content. >If it is the former, then there isn't much of a solution except to merge >with a network that sucks a huge amount of traffic. Presuming shortest-exit, correct. >However, if it is the latter, then wouldn't content distribution fix it? >I know many web farms >offer distributed servers to their customers as a type of premium service. >However, since in this case it benefits all parties involved, it seems to me >that it might make sense to offer this service to huge web sites at little >or no additional cost. It's difficult to "know" whether the distribution is actually working and resulting in interconnecti traffic which is local, but otherwise, yes. /John
|