nanog mailing list archives
Re: BBN/GTEI
From: owen () DeLong SJ CA US (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:04:37 -0700
Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Owen DeLong wrote:
Sure, but only the assymetry that results from BBN customers ASKING for more than they OFFER.Or is it the asymmetry that results from Exodus customers OFFERING more than they ASK FOR?
Since flow studies are confidential information, I will not quote from them. However, I will say that I would think it intuitively obvious to almost anyone on this list that Web Hosters don't OFFER very many packets that aren't a response to a REQUEST. Now, if we were discussing a large content provider that hosted alot of push-oriented sites, that might be a different story.
I don't think one of these views has any claim to precedence over the other. Just because long distance phone calling introduced the purely artificial concept that the initiator of the transaction pays for it does not mean we should analyze IP traffic in the same way. In the past we have considered the initiator of IP transactions to be irrelevant and had no-charge peering for networks that basically send a similar number of bytes to what they receive.
Ah, but with the advent of providers that focus primarily on access and other providers that focus primarily on hosting, the similar number of octets concept is disappearing. Not because one side is changing the balance, but because both sides are changing. More and more of the access providers are becoming larger and larger sinks at the same time that the hosting providers are becoming larger and larger sources. The shifting of the traffic flows is changing at roughly the same rate on BOTH sides, not because of one sides business model. Also, long distance phone calling didn't introduce the concept, it was around prior to telephones. Look at how shipping was handled on catalog orders in days before telephones. Generally, the purchaser pays shipping in almost all commerce. This has been true for a very long time.
So what do we do when that is no longer the case?
I _REALLY_ don't see that much of a need for changing the way things are. If the access providers cannot deliver the packets their customers request from the point they say they want to receive said traffic to their customers for the price they are charging said customers, then they need to reevaluate their pricing model. Similarly, it is the responsibility (IMHO) of the content provider to deliver the packets to the requested handoff point. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: BBN/GTEI, (continued)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Joe Provo - Network Architect (Aug 22)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Adrian Chadd (Aug 22)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 22)
- Message not available
- Re: BBN/GTEI Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Adrian Chadd (Aug 22)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Joe Provo - Network Architect (Aug 22)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 22)
- Re: BBN/GTEI bmanning (Aug 24)
- There's no substitute for value, was Re: BBN/GTEI John R. Levine (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 22)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Alan Barrett (Aug 24)
- RE: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- RE: BBN/GTEI Charles Sprickman (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Wayne Bouchard (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Paul Vixie (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 21)
