Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
owen at DeLong.SJ.CA.US
Mon Aug 24 18:00:23 UTC 1998
> p.s. The fact that the sender of traffic should be paying some portion
> of the resulting costs is not a surprise to anyone; many of the
> content companies that I've spoken to believe they already are
> paying more as traffic increases, and were quite surprised to
> find that it doesn't actually make it to the networks which
> bear the brunt of the traffic carriage.
> p.p.s. As noted, departure from shortest-exit is also another approach
> which may provide some answers to this situation, but that's a
> different topic which deserves its own thread. This message
> is simply noting that settling for peering traffic is quite
> viable, despite assertions to the contrary regarding traffic
> generation. As long as you're billing the senders on your
> network for increased usage (and handing it off shortest-exit),
> increased traffic is good thing.
Except, John, that you ignore the fact that you have basically required
anyone who wants to put a high-bandwidth server on your network to accept
other people writing a blank check for them, regardless of the legitimacy
of the hits they receive.
I doubt the customer would be too happy if your peering policy suddenly
tripled their bill.
More information about the NANOG