Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP

Matthew Petach mpetach at netflight.com
Fri May 16 19:15:15 UTC 2014

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net> wrote:
> > in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
> > to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect
> peering
> > ratios to be symmetric
> is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about
> offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be
> 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the
> traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into
> some horrific location(s) to access the content in question.
> Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly
> germaine to the conversation at hand.
Traffic asymmetry across peering connections
was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg,
if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic
went asymmetric, the refusals to augment
capacity kicked in, and congestion became
a problem.

I've seen the same thing; pretty much every
rejection is based on ratio issues, even when
offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the
home market for the users.

If the refusals hinged on any other clause
of the peering requirements, you'd be right;
but at the moment, that's the flag networks
are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour.
So, it may be very "1990", but unfortunately
that seems to be the year many people in
the industry are mentally stuck in.  :(


More information about the NANOG mailing list