Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP

[mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 08:52:31 PM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though?
> Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not
> be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even
> 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic
> over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build
> into some horrific location(s) to access the content in
> question.
> 
> Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not
> particularly germaine to the conversation at hand.

Agree.

We don't have a ratio requirement, for example. We have a 
"if it makes sense" requirement.

I'm forced to peer with certain African providers in London 
and Amsterdam because they don't want to peer in Africa, 
where we are literally are an x-connect away from each 
other. And the reasons are not even because either of us is 
larger or smaller than the other... it's just legacy 
thinking and we're the new guy that has grown rapidly.

Now we both have to pay for traffic to get sent to Europe 
and back. How nice...

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140518/1d13fcbd/attachment.pgp>