Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
jcurran at bbnplanet.com
Tue Aug 25 03:43:35 UTC 1998
At 08:19 PM 08/24/1998 -0400, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
>John Curran wrote:
>> Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs
>> and the sending customer bears some of the costs. In the case
>> of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting
>> traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up
>> bearing all of the costs.
>I guess 'all the cost' means most of the cost, and 'no offsetting traffic'
>means 'not much offsetting traffic'.
>However, is the real problem here the traffic assymetry, or the fact that
>all of the traffic is coming from one geographic location?
Traffic Assymetry of traffic which requires (for lack of better term)
"transport" to the destination. In the case of longest-exit routing,
the traffic received doesn't require much transit, nor in the case of
>If it is the former, then there isn't much of a solution except to merge
>with a network that sucks a huge amount of traffic.
Presuming shortest-exit, correct.
>However, if it is the latter, then wouldn't content distribution fix it?
>I know many web farms
>offer distributed servers to their customers as a type of premium service.
>However, since in this case it benefits all parties involved, it seems to me
>that it might make sense to offer this service to huge web sites at little
>or no additional cost.
It's difficult to "know" whether the distribution is actually
working and resulting in interconnecti traffic which is local,
but otherwise, yes.
More information about the NANOG