Hi all -
At the Peering BOF X at NANOG 35 in Los Angeles last week we held a
debate on the rationality of Peering Traffic Ratios as a Peering
Partner selection criteria. During the debate both sides made good
points, but interestingly, some of the strongest arguments on both
sides of the debate came out during the Q&A and during coffee
break/bar/beer-n-gear ad hoc debates that followed. I have classified
roughly six arguments culled from these discussion, attributed where I
remembered the source, along with the corresponding counter arguments
that seemed to collectively reveal the folly of peering traffic ratios
as a peering discriminator. I have documented and diagrammed these
arguments in the form of a white paper titled, of course, "The Folly
of Peering Traffic Ratios."
I am looking for some people to review the paper, provide feedback,
better defend an argument on either side, provide anecdotes, whatever
you believe would help make the paper an accurate portrayal of the
arguments on both sides of this issue. If you have the time to let me
walk you through the paper over the phone (about 20 minutes) and
discuss, that would be the best - I find I get the most feedback this
way. I'll send out a note to the list when I have done enough walk
throughs to feel comfortable enough that I have things about right and
that the draft can be circulated more broadly.
Here is the current summary from The Folly of Peering Ratios v0.5:
------------------------------------------ snip