Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: Patrick W. Gilmore (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 10:40:46 EST

  • Next message: Tore Anderson: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:03 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
    > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
    >
    >> 4. There is a reason behind ratios which has nothing to do with telco
    >> "sender-pays"
    >
    > There is an alleged reason.

    Peering rations were first 'big news' when BBN wanted to de-peer
    Above.Net, Global Center, and Exodus in 1998. I spent a long time
    chatting with BBN's CTO about why BBN wanted to do this. I am
    convinced the facts are correct.

    Perhaps more importantly, anyone who understands how BGP, fiber,
    routers, etc. work can figure this out for themselves without even
    talking to another network. Put another way, this is not a fantasy,
    supposition, bluster, etc.

    What do you have to convince people otherwise?

    >> Hot potato routing + very poor ratios puts much more of the cost on
    >> the receiving network. This is a valid, logical, and costly concern
    >> for receiving networks.
    >
    > So what? So the argument is:
    >
    > 1) Your customers want to receive from my customers.
    >
    > 2) Receiving is more expensive.
    >
    > 3) Therefore you should pay me?

    I don't remember saying that at all. Perhaps you should re-read my
    post.

    > I want to send, and sending is cheap. Your customers want to do the
    > expensive receiving, not mine. My customers want to do the cheap
    > sending.
    >
    > The ratio argument is nonsense. If your customers want to receive
    > mostly,
    > and receiving is expensive, they should pay you more to cover your
    > higher
    > costs in receiving traffic. If my customers mostly want to send, and
    > sending
    > is cheap, then I should pay less, since I want to do the cheap thing
    > and you
    > want to do the expensive thing.

    The ratio argument is not nonsense. And fortunately, what you spout
    on NANOG has no effect on reality.

    > Your customers pay you to carry their traffic across your network
    > between
    > them and the next network in the line. There is no reason anyone
    > else should
    > compensate you for doing this.

    <eyeball-network advocate>
    Your customers pay you to deliver their traffic to my eyeballs. There
    is no reason I should compensate you for doing so.
    </advocate>

    The FACT is that a point-source sending traffic to distributed
    receivers combined with hot-potato routing puts more of the cost on
    the receiver. That fact is not in dispute, apparently even you agree.

     From that fact, you can argue whether that is grounds for de-peering,
    settlements, etc. But the fact stands.

    Also, please note no one is forcing you to pay anyone. Cogent decided
    not to pay. There is no law forcing them, Sprint is not holding a gun
    to Dave's head. But just like no one is forcing the sender to pay, no
    one is forcing the receiver to pay either.

    Personally I think business problems have a business solution. For
    the ratio problems in 1998, Above.Net (and others, probably), agreed
    to carry the traffic and deliver it closer to BBN's eyeballs, thereby
    shifting the majority of the cost to AN. Dave (Rand this time, not
    Schaeffer) actually preferred it that way, saying he trusted his
    network more than BBN's and AN's customers pay him for quality. Hrmm,
    sounds like just the opposite of how you treat your customer's
    traffic....

    -- 
    TTFN,
    patrick
    

  • Next message: Tore Anderson: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD