If a "peer" at an EP is using more than that amount of
bandwidth, one might want to negotiate an exchange of
money. For example if A and B meet at an EP and are running
into the drop threshold because of the amount of traffic
being exchanged, the one with the screaming customers may
be asked to pay a certain amount of money per increment of
additional bandwidth. This may always be B's customers,
or it may flip-flop between A's customers and B's
customers over time, and thus should be considered a
business negotiation on both parties' part.
I think Sean has summaried the arguments very well, and I agree
with im in most respects. The issue as I see it is to be found in
this paragraph above.
Where a phone company exchanges traffic with another phone compnay
and there is some form of settlement involved, this cannot apply
to the IXs until some serious technology breakthroughs happen in
terms of measurement of IP.
The reason the telcos can figure out who owes what is because the
routeing for both halves of the conversation are (a) symmetric and
(b) you know who placed the call.
In the Internet both parties are paying for their connection (I
hope) and the distinction between who made the call and who is
offering the service can only be made after quite some work. The
source and destination ports are not enough. Also, does this mean
that asymmetric routeing (the reason for multiple DS3s and hot-potato
routeing) is a no no ?
Are web sites like 800 numbers, in which case the called party
should be charged... how do you hold this database... the list goes
on and on.
Just to add to the confusion...