|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
Well put. The etymology of the whole mindset around peering is a legacy from the academic/socialist roots of the Internet. There are still a great number of people who think this is some kind of social engineering experiment, as opposed to a communications infrastructure run by, and for the benefit of, businesses. If that craws anyone's hide, then go build community networks and peer with each other, no-one's going to stop you. By the same token, you don't have the right to force anyone else to pay for what you want. >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:46 AM >To: NANOG list >Subject: Re: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent > >On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, bas <[email protected]> said: >>> I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too.. >>> "You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money >>> to >>> upgrade ports and transport all that traffic" Complete reverse logic >>> imho. It is always eyeball network customers that request data. >>> (except for a small portion of iphone/blackberry push email, but that >>> can't account for much.) >> >> Traffic sources tend to be concentrated in large data centers >> (easier to >> service), while traffic sinks (DSL, cable, wireless) are widespread >> and >> costly to upgrade. The sink customers don't want to pay more (and >> there's at least some competition), so the sink providers look to see >> where else they get income to pay for their needed network upgrades. > >Combined with hot-potato routing, the first part of that paragraph is >a fancy way of saying "I have to carry the large packet a long way, >you have to carry the small packet a long way". It is not "fair". >This is almost a good reason, but not quite. (It can also be offset >by moving the source next to the sink, through cold-potato routing / >MEDs, anycast, CDNs, etc.) > >The second part is a good business reason. Profitable revenue is >good, costs are bad. > >There are good business reasons not to pay the sink as well. But >neither decision is obvious or the same for everyone. > >Peering is complicated, people should stop trying to generalize it. > > >Peering is a business tool. For years & years many people have >claimed that to "peer" you must be equal. Bullshit. If I can make >more or spend less by peering, I should do it. If not, I should not. >Full stop. Notice the complete lack of regard for how big you are, >how much capacity your backbone has, how many ASes are downstream of >you, etc.? When I go to buy routers or hire employees or any other >business transaction, I don't say "that router vendor is making more >money than I am, so I won't buy from him". If people applied >"peering" logic to anything else, they'd be laughed out of a job. > >Don't know about you, but I am in business to make money, not measure >my anatomy. How big the next guy is doesn't enter into my equation - >other than how it affects my bottom line. > >To be clear, it is entirely possible that peering does not save you >money. Vijay is right, most people can't measure their COGS to save >their life. And if the network in question cannot, there's no way in >hell the prospective peer can. If you are a huge point source of >traffic and want to peer, I may save money by saying no and paying a >transit provider to deliver the packet to me where I want it >(especially at today's prices). Fiber, routers, colo, NOC employees, >engineers, etc., are all not free ya know. > >You can claim my customers asked for the data and therefore I have a >requirement to peer, but you would be deluded. What my customer and I >have agreed has _nothing_ to do with you or your needs. You don't >tell me how to run my network, and I won't tell you how to run yours. >Deal? > >On the flip side, saying "you are not on 3 continents so I will not >peer" is stupid of not peering costs you millions a year. Stupid >decisions abound in the peering ecosystem. > >There are tons of other _business_ reasons to peer, or not to peer. >But "we're equal" or "your customer asked for it" are not reasons, >stop using them. > >-- >TTFN, >patrick >
|