North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Sat Oct 08 11:11:50 2005 
On Oct 8, 2005, at 7:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from
mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to
not peer.
I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more expensive to
receive traffic than to send it.
But it is not.

It is more expensive to carry a large packet a long way than to carry a small packet a long way. Because of things like hot-potato routing, that frequently means the sender has less cost than the receiver, depending on where they meet.

The rest of your argument is based on the premise that none of this is changeable. Which is clearly wrong.

"Receivers" have been de-peering "Senders" for over half a decade. (I.e. "Forever" in Internet time.) These fights have been fixed by things like sending MEDs or intentionally recruiting customers to balance traffic for a long, long time.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with an eyeball network saying "I'll carry it, gimme gimme!" But that doesn't mean they have to.


Yes, that can't possibly work. It's way too simple and actually makes
sense.
No, it can't work because you assume things which are not necessarily factual. Not to mention, it doesn't make sense.

--
TTFN,
patrick