North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)
On Oct 8, 2005, at 7:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
But it is not.Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. fromI think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more expensive to
It is more expensive to carry a large packet a long way than to carry a small packet a long way. Because of things like hot-potato routing, that frequently means the sender has less cost than the receiver, depending on where they meet.
The rest of your argument is based on the premise that none of this is changeable. Which is clearly wrong.
"Receivers" have been de-peering "Senders" for over half a decade. (I.e. "Forever" in Internet time.) These fights have been fixed by things like sending MEDs or intentionally recruiting customers to balance traffic for a long, long time.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with an eyeball network saying "I'll carry it, gimme gimme!" But that doesn't mean they have to.
Yes, that can't possibly work. It's way too simple and actually makesNo, it can't work because you assume things which are not necessarily factual. Not to mention, it doesn't make sense.