Sure, but only the assymetry that results from BBN customers ASKING for more
than they OFFER.
Owen
What this is clearly illustrating is that dialup customers are not
as profitable as they used to be, and that web hosting and dedicated service
are very profitable.
Let's propose for a minute that Exodus is so unhappy about losing
BBN connectivity that they buy transit to get to BBN from a third party
(clearly they're not going to buy it directly from BBN). They enter in to a
contract for transit to BBN via a third party, UUNet as an example. They run
a local fddi (or whatever) to a UUNet router which then dumps the traffic the
fastest way possible. UUNet then scores a little bit of money for the trouble,
and BBN gets nothing except more traffic to run coast to coast. Now what are
they going to do? Dump UUNet too? Please.
BBN should either find a way of making dialup profitable or get in to
other lines of service. Trying to extort money from peers is a ludicrous
waste of time.
Austin
Or is it the asymmetry that results from Exodus customers OFFERING more
than they ASK FOR?
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.
So what do we do when that is no longer the case?
> 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?
Of course not. The BBN customers have to request the data. Exodus isn't
forcing the traffic down their throats. I don't see how it could be much
clearer.
I don't think one of these views has any claim to precedence over the
other.
Given that the assymetry of traffic is caused by BBN customers requesting
the traffic, sure it does.
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.
It isn't artificial. It maps to the real world:
Me: "Hi, I'd like to have a pizza delivered."
Pizza Place: "Ok, that'll be $19.95."
What you are proposing has the pizza place paying for the pizza. Awesome
if you could pull it off, I love free pizza, but totally absurd to expect
or attempt to require.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
Systems Administrator (925) 377-1212 v
NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/