|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Limited peering battle (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
On Fri, 01 June 2001, Mike Leber wrote: > On 1 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote: > > So, can anyone explain why C&W, UUNET or Genuity care about traffic > > balance, other than to limit competition by providers who are better > > at attracting particular types of customers than them? > > You have the cart before the horse (effect before cause), there are really > two principles that come before the example policy effect above. They are > truisms. I understand that, however my interest was much more limited than launching an incindary device into another peering battle. I'm want to understand why a 1.5:1, or 2:1 balance is required. What technical purpose does it achieve. I've asked folks from large and small providers about this, and they've told me a variety of reasons. But none of the reasons, so far, have held technical merit in the final analysis. There were always alternatives which did not require maintaining a inverse market share balance between providers. ANS used to require cold potato routing, is it time to bring it back? I know, provider-based CIDR makes that difficult.
|