Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
jeremy at manor.org
Sat Nov 1 08:22:44 CDT 2008
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:20 AM, bas <kilobit at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net>
> > If Sprint is upset that Cogent is sending Sprint much more traffic than
> > Sprint is sending Cogent, how does Sprint sending Cogent even less
> > (and making the ratio even worse) help Sprint? Why would Cogent care?
> Why does everyone keep referring to traffic flows as sendng?
> In this case it's not as if Cogent just randomly sends data to Sprint.
> Sprint customers are requesting content from Cogent customers right?
> So Sprint depeers Cogent because Sprint customers are requesting to
> much content from Cogents customers?
> I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too..
> "You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money to
> upgrade ports and transport all that traffic" Complete reverse logic
> imho. It is always eyeball network customers that request data.
> (except for a small portion of iphone/blackberry push email, but that
> can't account for much.)
it makes little to no difference how you skin that cat... the traditional
model still plagues so called "content rich" networks and has been used,
shamelessly, by the eyeball networks with no end in sight. i am by no means
defending cogent, nor do i claim to know that ratios are the only item on
the list of violated peering agreement clauses.
my particular complaint is that with the upswing of broadband in this
country it is continually less and less to do with "how many direct eyeballs
do i have" and more to do with "to which cable/dsl providers do i provide
transit." the former was used as a cost-model basis for the eyeball
networks requiring ratios as it was far more expensive to establish a broad
presence to provide eyeball connectivity... the latter does not match that
logic and has yet to filter it's way into fair settlement-free peering
More information about the NANOG