Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
From: Wayne E Bouchard <web () typo org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:02:49 -0700

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:44:15PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:

On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:

as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.

I agree with Randy, but will go one further.

Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes your competitors to compete in your 
home market.

You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements?  You go into the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing 
an eyeball provider, or creating one.

Google Fiber, anyone?

Having a requirement that's basically "you must compete with me on all the products I sell" is a really dumb 
peering policy, but that's how the big guys use ratio.

At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business models and the
reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public policy interest is due to the 
wide spread legacy of monopoly driven public investment in the last mile 


At the risk of inflaming passions, I'll share my opinion on this whole
topic and then disappear back into my cubicle.

For my part, peering ratios never made sense anyway except in the pure
transit world. I mean, content providers are being punished by eyeball
networks because the traffic is one way. Well, DUH! But everyone
overlooks two simple facts: 1) Web pages don't generate traffic, users
do. Content sits there taking up disk space until a user comes to grab
it. (Not quite the case with data miners such as Google, but you get
the idea.) 2) Users would not generate traffic unless there were
content they want to access. Whether that is web pages, commerce pages
such as Amazon or ebay, streams, or peer-to-peer game traffic, if
there's nothing interesting, there's nothing happening. So both sides
have an equal claim to "it's all your fault" and one seeking to punish
the other is completely moronic.

Traffic interchange is good. Period. It puts the users closer to the
content and the content closer to the user and everyone wins. So I
never once understood why everyone was all fired up about ratios. It
just never made any sense to me from the get-go. To have government
get into this will certainly not help the problem, it will just make
it a hundred times worse. Remember the old saying that the eight most
terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the
government. I'm here to help." and boy will they try to "help". You'll
be lucky if you as a company can keep still your doors open after they
get done "helping" you.

Anyhow, just my two bits.


Wayne Bouchard
web () typo org
Network Dude

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]