ratios

Wed May 8 00:28:40 UTC 2002

Here is a good point.  Also something to think about.  Recently I read 
the argument that ip space is sometimes used up by an isp by attaching 
it all to old machines that will answer requests to justify new arin 
space.  Its a total improper use of the space but it is done to meet 
requirements.  Someone in this case could create false traffic either 
pull or push probably most likely pull and meet the ratio but cause 
drastic amounts of  useless traffic to be carried on the backbone.  This 
does create far worse problems.  I'd assume such a method could be 
determined if not done properly but still it seems that these policies 
whether relating to ip allocation or ratio of traffic leads to more harm 
than good.

On Tue, 7 May 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> 
> In a message written on Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:50:00PM -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
> > the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic
> > ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit.
> 
> What I find unfortunate about most of the published peering policies
> is that they don't seem to take the spirit of your statement to
> heart.  Most of the published peering requirements are absolute.
> These are the N areas we find important, and our definition of all
> of them, please meet them all or you get nothing.  What these
> requirements are doing are forcing a /business model/, in effect
> increasing your own competition.
> 
> Imagine two providers.  One is a 100% content hosting play, the
> other is a 100% end user access play.  In terms of ratio it will
> be high (10:1?), as all the content flows to the users.  Neither
> network would be of any value without the other, and I would argue
> them peering is a perfect symbiotic relationship.
> 
> What a peering ratio like 1.5:1 does is require them to compete.
> The hoster must go out and find end users, and the access provider
> must find some content to host.  They start going after each others
> customers, and a price war ensues hurting both companies.  The way
> providers insure common ratios is to insure they have similar,
> often overlapping customer bases.
> 
> Note, none of this has anything to do with geography or cost.  In
> my two provider network you could give either one the nationwide
> network, and make the other the small regional guy.  The "larger
> cost" could fall on either network.
> 
> My point is not that ratio shouldn't be used, but that it shouldn't
> be used in all cases.  Perhaps if you have 10 criteria to evaluate
> a peer, it would be more reasonable to require them to meet 9 of
> the 10, or 8 of the 10.  Allow for the fact that networks are
> different.  Don't try to make every network look like your own,
> you create more competition for yourself in the end.
> 
> 