Please read my prior statement below, but I must not have been clear. I'll
restate:
1.85% of our TOTAL OUTPUT goes to BBN.
We estimate that to be between 10-30% of BBN's TOTAL INPUT.
I have no idea what our total input from BBN is, but I'd imagine it to be
the same percentage, but a hell of a lot lower bandwidth (as our aggregate
input is extremely low). If I was a larger input from BBN, supposedly we
woulldn't be in this mess..
The 10-30% range is a pure estimate based upon the number of top web sites
that use our network, the relative percentage of input we are with other
ISPs, and some guessing work. Hence, the wide range and the "estimate"
disclaimer.
BBN is the only one that can tell us what percentage of the total input traffic
is Exodus. Of course, you should probably take into the consideration the
amount of bits dropped into /dev/null because of the rate-shaping BBN
instituted on the pxs. We did.
Rob
Speaking for the company.
I'm sorry, I must be missing something here.
Let's assume for a minute that the following figures provided by exodus
are even close to correct:
1.85% of our TOTAL OUTPUT goes to BBN.
We estimate that to be between 10-30% of BBN's TOTAL INPUT.
The way I'm reading this is that if the BBN <-> Exodus link is severed,
Exodus looses 1.85 percent of their hits. Not an appreciable dent.
On the other hand, BBN's customers can't get to 10%-30% of the web content
they want.
Now, who should be paying who?
I'll tell you right now that if I was BBN, I'd remember that I'm getting
10%-30% of the traffic that my customers want from exodus, and I'd
definately not want to piss them off (neither my customers nor exodus).
After all, it's the BBN customers REQUESTING the data from exodus, not the
other way around. The fact that exodus is willing to carry the traffic
cross-country both ways and pay for the circuit costs between them and bbn
seems almost over-courteous to me.
- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com)
In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.980815012720.27167B-100000@workhorse.iMach.com>,
After all, it's the BBN customers REQUESTING the data from exodus, not the
other way around.
This argument goes around and around every time. Unless you have a
customer relationship with Exodus or BBN there is no point in arguing
about what should happen with this particular case, and there is no
point at all in arguing about what is the morally correct thing for
the general case. The only way to determine the value of connecting
network A to network B, in either sign or magnitude, is for A and B to
negotiate a price, which may even be zero. And that's what's
happening here, albeit in a unusually painful and visible way.
If you have an opinion and are a customer of BBN or Exodus, tell them
your opinion. Otherwise there is no need to care.
Actually, if you're a BBN customer, I strongly recommend that you tell them
by taking your contract, placing it in the paper shredder, and sending them
the chips it emits.
Then buy connectivity from someone who has a corporate view that when you
pay someone for transit, you are buying transit to all of the net they can
reach and not just those who they can pry yet more money from (especially
considering that you already paid them for that service!)
This issue is of specific importance to any individual responsible for
running an ISP. Just as in the legal field the outcome of this issue may
set a precedence for future events that will severely impact anyone
wanting to become a tier one provider. The Internet was founded on the
principle of free interconnectivity between network segments. It is
fundamentally important that these ideals be extended to the future of
the Internet, if it is to have a future. No company should have the
right to force another to pay for connectivity simply because the latter
has not been around since the beginning or they are not a telco. The
next company on BBN's hit list may be yours.
Mark
*** Disclaimer ***
The opinions expressed here are just those, opinions. They are neither
the offical statements of my employer or endorced as such.
Michael Shields wrote:
fundamentally important that these ideals be extended to the future of
the Internet, if it is to have a future. No company should have the
right to force another to pay for connectivity simply because the latter
has not been around since the beginning or they are not a telco.
BBN is answerable to their customers and shareholders and not to your
or my ideals of how the Internet should work.
> fundamentally important that these ideals be extended to the future of
> the Internet, if it is to have a future. No company should have the
> right to force another to pay for connectivity simply because the latter
> has not been around since the beginning or they are not a telco.
BBN is answerable to their customers and shareholders and not to your
or my ideals of how the Internet should work.
I agree with you from a business perspective. It's not our
right as "innocent bystanders" with no financial interest
in the company to have influence on corporate decisions.
But, I think that what BBN is doing isn't the right thing.
Instead of putting the work into solving the problem of how
to value the peering relationship in something other than
the quid pro quo metric of bytes, they're simply going
home.
They don't have the right answer, nor do I. Figuring it out
has got to happen. Absent another, more appropriate, forum
having the discussion, here is best.
If none of us cared, would we be up at four o'clock in the
morning saying so?
Shields, CrossLink.
Have fun,
Todd
I disagree.
Precedent, m'boy, precedent. There _is_ a reasonable derivation from
the available facts, or at least a pattern to create one... _if_ people
who have to make the judgement call don't see fit to toss it in the
trash.
Cheers,
-- jra