Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
jbates at brightok.net
Mon Nov 29 18:16:27 CST 2010
On 11/29/2010 5:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> No one will ever be in ratio compliance with an eyeball dominant
> network. Ever. Period. It's not possible via technology and
> TOS. Enforcing it as an eyeball network just forces content providers
> to aquire eyeballs, e.g. compete with you. That's bad business.
The NSPs generally don't do non-transit peering unless traffic loads are
high enough to justify it. That said, CDNs are the same. Google doesn't
want to peer privately with someone who doesn't do enough traffic to
justify the cost of the port, haul, support, etc.
The ratio of which way bits are flying are really irrelevant when
peering, and as you say, tends to be more ego than anything. The key,
and what everyone wants is "Someone paying me talks to someone I don't
have to pay." Doesn't matter if it's CDN talking transit to an eyeball
network or eyeballs paying for transit to access a privately peered CDN.
What you don't want is 2 entities talking to one another through you
without you making a dime.
More information about the NANOG