michael at memra.com
Fri Aug 21 22:36:08 UTC 1998
On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
> In fact, what you're advocating is billing the sender for *solicited data*
> from the recipient's point of view!
Not at all. I am advocating paying for transit. When A and B use roughly
the same amount of each other's transit, there is no point in counting the
difference. But when you have an asymmetric situation, rather than cutting
off peering altogether because the other guy is too different, why not
have a scalable peering situation that directly addresses the asymmetry in
traffic flows. The only other solution that I can see is for the network
receiving the huge incoming flow to direct all that web traffic through
transparent web caches at each exchange point. However that just raises
increased barriers to peering and does not deal with non-cacheable
dataflows which are increasing over time. Scalable peering would reduce
the barriers to peering and make it easier for new players to buy in. They
would still have to build a truly national network, but at that point they
could not have the door slammed in their faces.
Regardless of whether my proposed solution is the correct one or just a
bad idea produced by indigestion, you cannot deny that the asymmetry
between networks is increasing as network providers specialize the
services they offer. The old-fashioned rough-cut peering is becoming more
and more unsuitable as the only peering option. We need new ways to do
this. Somebody has to take the first step. Somebody has to be a pioneer.
The details can always be hashed out later.
Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael at memra.com
Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com
More information about the NANOG