North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

  • From: David Schwartz
  • Date: Mon Oct 10 12:29:35 2005

> [email protected] ("David Schwartz") writes:

> > 	I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
> > expensive to receive traffic than to send it.

> It is?  For everybody?  For always?  That's a BIG statement.  Can
> you justify?

	In those cases where it in fact is and there's nothing you can do about it,
you need to accept it. You should not expect to be able to shift the burden
of carrying your customers' traffic on your network to others. (The fact
that you can sometimes bully or blackmail and get away with it doesn't
justify it.)

> > ...
> > 	The question is whether the benefit to each side exceeds their cost.

> Yea, verily.  But I don't think you'll find a one-cost-fits-all
> model.  When
> one person's costs are lower than another and they're doing
> similar things,
> it's often called "efficiency" or "competitiveness".  (Just as
> one example.)

	I heartily agree.

	My point is simply that the "your customers are getting more out of our
network that our customers are" argument is bull. Your customers are paying
you to carry their traffic over your network.

	There can certainly be legitimate peering disputes about where to peer and
whether there are enough peering points. If someone wants you to peer with
them at just one place, it would certainly be more cost-effective for you to
reach them through a transit provider you meet in multiple places, for
example. (You could definitely refuse settlement-free peering if it actually
increases your costs to reach the peer.)

	I am not making the pie-in-the-sky argument that everyone should peer with
everyone else. I am specifically rejecting the argument that a traffic
direction imbalance is grounds for rejecting settlement-free peering. If
your customers want to receive traffic and receiving is more expensive, then
that's what they're paying you for.

	Again, carrying *your* customers' traffic over *your* network is what
*your* customers are paying *you* for. If your customers want more expensive
traffic, you should bear that greater burden.

	A traffic direction imbalance is not reasonable grounds for rejecting SFI.
The direction your customers want their traffic to go is more valuable and
it's okay if it costs more.