Karl Denninger karl at
Thu Aug 27 17:10:20 UTC 1998

On Thu, Aug 27, 1998 at 12:41:54AM +0300, Tuomas Toivonen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 02:41:58PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > None of this has ANYTHING to do with what the customer has purchased - which
> > is TRANSIT TO THE ENTIRE INTERNET.  Not just the parts that someone else
> > will pay that same provider to communicate with.
> CustA - NetA <-> NetB - CustB. Both customer are _buying_ for transit for the
> whole source-destination path, but are _paying_ only for (in this case) half
> of it. Customers share the costs, because providing service to each other is
> considered beneficial. Therefore networks A and B peer if traffic is roughly
> equal or exchange traffic with settlement fees if not.
> -- 
> tuomas.toivonen at               fishpool creations ltd

That's your view of the world, but its not reality.

Assume CUSTb is a web server, and CUSTa is a T1 connected client.

CUSTa sends a TCP SYN, accepts an ACK, and transmits 40 bytes of a URL.

CUSTb responds to the SYN, accepts and ACK (3-way handshake) and transmits,
in direct response to the URL request, 200KB of data back to the CUSTa.

Now, NETb has a net deficit of packets to NETa.  NETa says "pay up or else"
and demands a settlement from NETb; a settlement which NETb cannot collect
on, as NETb has no means of assessing CUSTa, which is the cause of the
traffic so generated.

NETb says "bite me", correctly perceiving that they should not allow
arbitrary people to write blank checks on their accounts.

NETa drops peering in response to the "bite me".

NETa's customer drops their connectivity contract for a material breach of
their agreement (deliberate interferance with their connectivity to NETb)
and shops elsewhere.

Who just lost by NETas activities here?

That's what I thought.

Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
			     | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

More information about the NANOG mailing list