ratios

Tue May 7 22:46:29 UTC 2002

Chris I'm with you this to a point.  It seems to me that balance is 
reasonable to a point but some of these numbers are to close.  It seems 
more a reasonable to peer to reduce the network distance covered and 
provide a better end user experience than to use transit which may cover 
greater distances and in the end use more resources.  I totally 
understand wanting to sell transit however and make money and some 
levels this is the most logical and best practice but on others simply 
because someone is not with in themagic ratio not peer.  It seems to me 
that many other concerns are far more important ie trouble resolution 
response time, proper route policy and just solid technical ability.  
I'd rather peer with someone who won't cause more work for me.

I realize none of these issues are cut and dry but it seemed odd to me.
On 
Tue, 7 
May 2002, Chris Parker wrote:

> 
> At 05:50 PM 5/7/2002 -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
> 
> >Scott:
> >
> >     Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not
> >totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who benefits:
> >the eyball or the content provider???
> 
> I would say that both, which is why I personally feel that ratios are
> misapplied in a lot of instances.
> 
> ( Some providers feel that it benefits neither the eyeball or the content
>    provider to peer, they would like both to pay them for transit )
> 
> BTW Peter, thanks for killing our peering sessions.  I guess our eyeballs
> were of no benefit to your content providers?  *shrug*
> 
> -Chris
> --
>     \\\|||///  \          StarNet Inc.      \        Chris Parker
>     \ ~   ~ /   \       WX *is* Wireless!    \   Director, Engineering
>     | @   @ |    \   http://www.starnetwx.net \      (847) 963-0116
> oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------
>                    \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net
> 
> 