|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: New peering criteria
On Wed, 06 June 2001, Vijay Gill wrote: > On 6 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote: > > > If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll > > terminate the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll > > fight to keep it in place. > > If it will hurt you more than it will hurt them, then you aren't a really > a "peer", and in that case, the disparity is resolved by the use of a > service contract whereby you pay them money in exchange for connectivity. I agree, but how do you decide who is hurt more? And therefore who should be the vendor and who is the customer? Is the "bigger" network always the vendor, or is the network with more content the vendor, or the network with more eyeballs the vendor? That's what I don't understand about the "balance" requirement. Ok, so you know the traffic is imbalanced, but whose fault/hurt is it when traffic is imbalanced? And who is responsible for "fixing" the imbalance in traffic? The simple answer is I'm the vendor and you are the customer, so you should pay me. The more difficult answer is one side turns off the connection (C&W) and the first side to blink is the customer (C&W). If C&W didn't feel any pain, why would they turn the peering sessions back on?
|