owen at DeLong.SJ.CA.US
Sat Aug 22 01:46:54 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.
> > On the contrary.
> > If I buy a DS1 for transit from your network, I'm expecting the person I pay
> > to provide transit - ALL OF THE TRANSIT.
> Of course, and I agree with you 100%. But I was not talking about a
> transit customer. I was talking about a peer whose traffic interchange is
> asymmetric and who therefore uses some regional transit in the other guy's
> network. I'm saying that instead of slamming the door in his face and
> telling him to buy transit, we need to have a scalable peering option that
> is a blend.
Ah, but you were talking about traffic from said content provider _TO_ a
transit customer, no? The point here is that when I buy a T1 from provider A,
I expect him to get my traffic to/from the ENTIRE internet, not the Internet,
except those providers that choose not to purchase transit and are not
symmetrical in their traffic flows.
> Maybe I am headed in the wrong direction with this but I do believe we
> need a better solution for peering with asymmetric peers that reduces the
> barriers to entry to $$$. Right now there are barriers to entry that
> probably will not pass the scrutiny of the DOJ.
That may be. However, the $$$ methods you are talking about are likely
to bill the wrong end of the connection. You have repeatedly proposed
a solution which allows the customers of transit provider A who purchase
transit from transit provider A to write a blank check for provider B
to provider A to cover the costs of said transit customer receiving
content they request off of servers hosted by provider B.
More information about the NANOG