Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

exodus.net preference = 5, mail exchanger = postal.exodus.net

John Curran wrote:
>
> Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs
> and the sending customer bears some of the costs. In the case
> of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting
> traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up
> bearing all of the costs.

I guess 'all the cost' means most of the cost, and 'no offsetting traffic'
means 'not much offsetting traffic'.

However, is the real problem here the traffic assymetry, or the fact that
all of the traffic is coming from one geographic location?

If it is the former, then there isn't much of a solution except to merge
with a network that sucks a huge amount of traffic. However, if it is the
latter, then wouldn't content distribution fix it? I know many web farms
offer distributed servers to their customers as a type of premium service.
However, since in this case it benefits all parties involved, it seems to me
that it might make sense to offer this service to huge web sites at little
or no additional cost.

Actually, if the content provider simply honors MEDs, that should cover most
of the issue. Then, the long haul is done across the content providers'
backbone anyway.

Owen

2

Owen DeLong wrote:

Actually, if the content provider simply honors MEDs, that should cover most
of the issue. Then, the long haul is done across the content providers'
backbone anyway.

Then you get into address aggregation issues that have already been
discussed before.

The way I see it, an intelligent content distribution scheme addresses the
vast majority of these concerns.

So, a question to the large web farms. Why is it that the largest web sites
still seem to be hosted out of a single data center?

Alec