From: John Curran (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 07:53:35 EST
At 12:27 PM +0000 11/1/05, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>Hi John,
>
>> Even with cold-potato routing, there is an expense in handling increased
>> levels of traffic that is destined for your network. This increase in traffic
>> often has no new revenue associated with it, because it is fanning out to
>> thousands of flat-rate consumer/small-business connections (e.g. DSL)
>> where billing is generally by peak capacity not usage.
>
>not true for cogent tho, we know that virtually all their traffic is usage based
>transit customers
The traffic from Cogent creates additional infrastructure requirements on L3.
L3 may (or may not) be able to recover these costs as incremental revenue
from the recipients, depending on the particulars of their agreements. One
way of mitigating their exposure is to set an upper bound on uncompensated
inbound traffic.
Mind you, this is entirely hypothetical, as specifics of the Cogent/L3 agreement
are not available. However, it is one way to let everyone "bill and keep" for
Internet traffic without an unlimited exposure, and it is an approach that has
been used successfully in the past.
/John
|
|
|