From: Pete Templin (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 09:22:20 EST
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>>Pete Templin wrote:
>>>John Curran wrote:
>>>>Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the
>>>>receiving network even if its handed off at the closest interconnect
>>>>to the final destination(s).
>>>
>>>And there's still revenue, as the traffic is going to customers (we all
>>>filter our prefixes carefully, right?). What's the problem with
>>>cold-potato again, or should we all just try to double-dip?
>>>
> I can almost smell your sarcasm from here. :)
>
> The problem here is that people naively assume all traffic is the same,
> and costs the same to deliver, which is just not the case. On-net traffic
> costs significantly more to deliver than outbound traffic, because you are
> virtually guaranteed that you are going to have to haul it somewhere at
> your expense.
Time out here. John set the stage: cold potato addressed the long haul
(or at least that's the assumption in place when I hopped on board). If
NetA and NetB are honoring MED (or other appropriate knob), NetA->NetB
traffic has already arrived at the closest mutual peering point in the
A->B direction. The rest of the infrastructure would be the
responsibility of NetB to get the traffic to CustomerPortXYZ, no? How
could CustomerXY get any closer to NetA without cutting NetB out of the
middle, and if NetB is out of the middle, why should CustomerXY pay NetB
anything?
pt
|
|
|