|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ratios
Richard, I believe you also missed must operate a US-wide OC48 network. must exchange at 4 locations over OC3 or above with at least 45Mb traffic per location and most friendly of all, you must supply a detailed network topology and current operational capacities.. why not ask for 5 year business plan and bank numbers too .. and how about next weeks lottery numbers? Steve On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:50:00PM -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote: > > > > Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not > > totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who > > benefits: the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic > > ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit. > > This makes for some great logic. If you really believe that traffic in > either direction can be equally beneficial, then why require ratios at > all? If on the other hand, you believe that content is less valuable than > eyeballs, wouldn't eyeball providers be the most valuable of peers? Except > in the case of mismanagement (such as a congested peer), a peer benefits > everyone. Why does it matter that a peer benefit both sides in exactly the > same ways? > > Yes there are legitimate arguments in the favor of not accepting smaller > peers. If they're all eyeballs and only in one location you have to haul > traffic there that you otherwise would have dropped locally on one of the > bigger peers that they buy transit from. But if they can meet the > locations, I don't see a legitimate argument for ratios. Perhaps what you > need to do is consider distance to the egress point above AS Path length. > :) > > Then we comes to those little things that are just there to try and keep > people from qualifying to peer. You can't be serious about requiring 5000 > routes can you? Way to encourage aggregation, really. > > When it comes down to it, someone on your network has PAID YOU to BRING > them traffic as well as to deliver it. If you can't do that then I'm sure > they can find someone who can. As for the "if they can't peer, they'll buy > transit" argument, I find that equally negated by the "if they won't peer, > why should I buy their transit" argument. > >
|