|
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 03:15 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Patrick Greenwell 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. > >Well, my understanding is (and someone correct me if I am wrong) in at >least the case of Exodus, they aren't using closest-exit. I can completely >understand requiring peers not use closest-exit. That seems somewhat >reasonable. I was not referring to any particular peering relationship, only problems brought about by closest-exit peering in the presence of highly assymetric traffic. >I haven't seen anything in these recent discussions to suggest that BBN >would be offering me a discount on inbound traffic since now the sender >would be paying for it. In the case of traffic coming coming from a peer network with wildly asymmetric traffic, the sending network is paying to offset the traffic assymetry; this returns the economics to that of a balanced peer or an on-net sender (which is the normal case today). /John
|