ratios

E.B. Dreger eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net
Tue May 7 18:01:04 UTC 2002


SG> Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 10:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
SG> From: Scott Granados


SG> I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone
SG> could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine
SG> elegibility to peer?   I have heard that some carrers
SG> especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in
SG> fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring 
SG> equal use of the peer?

Ask Mr. Google or Mrs. Archives.

Hints:

* Traffic is often asymmetric.  If I browse Web pages, I receive
  far more traffic than I send.

* Routing... hot potato or cold potato?

* Ramifications of requiring (or not) consistent adverts at
  different locations.

It boils down to attempting to make the peering "equally
beneficial" to both parties.  I don't necessarily agree with (nor
inherently object to) the reasoning, but that's the idea.

I suspect that this was discussed last June during the 174/3561
incident.

Keep in mind that the peering mindset is:  "I'll buy transit if
I can't peer.  I'll peer if I can't sell transit.  I'll sell
transit if I can."


--
Eddy

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.




More information about the NANOG mailing list