PCH Peering Paper

Phil Bedard bedard.phil at gmail.com
Sat Feb 13 00:39:44 UTC 2016


I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free peering between large content providers and eyeball networks there are written agreements in place.  I would have no clue on the volume percentage but it's not going to be near 99%.  

Phil



From: Livingood, Jason
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:41 AM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: re: PCH Peering Paper

How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links
but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like
50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up -
could be any percentage.)


Jason

PS - My email address has changed and I’m trying to send a 3rd time.
Apologies if they all suddenly post to the list as duplicates! :-)

>On 2/10/16, 6:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Patrick W. Gilmore"
><nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
>
>>I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules,
>>talking about myself.)
>>
>>The paper is:
>>	https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2
>>0
>>11.pdf
>>
>>I said ³99.97%² of all peering sessions have nothing behind them more
>>than a ³handshake² or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Culpa.
>>
>>The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%.
>>
>>Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better
>>data.
>>
>>-- 
>>TTFN,
>>patrick
>>
>>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list