North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now

  • From: Pete Templin
  • Date: Wed Nov 02 09:23:26 2005

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Pete Templin wrote:
John Curran wrote:
Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the
receiving network even if its handed off at the closest interconnect
to the final destination(s).
And there's still revenue, as the traffic is going to customers (we all filter our prefixes carefully, right?). What's the problem with cold-potato again, or should we all just try to double-dip?

I can almost smell your sarcasm from here. :)

The problem here is that people naively assume all traffic is the same, and costs the same to deliver, which is just not the case. On-net traffic costs significantly more to deliver than outbound traffic, because you are virtually guaranteed that you are going to have to haul it somewhere at your expense.
Time out here. John set the stage: cold potato addressed the long haul (or at least that's the assumption in place when I hopped on board). If NetA and NetB are honoring MED (or other appropriate knob), NetA->NetB traffic has already arrived at the closest mutual peering point in the A->B direction. The rest of the infrastructure would be the responsibility of NetB to get the traffic to CustomerPortXYZ, no? How could CustomerXY get any closer to NetA without cutting NetB out of the middle, and if NetB is out of the middle, why should CustomerXY pay NetB anything?