nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () vix com>
Date: 06 Oct 2005 23:01:19 +0000
bensons () savvis net ("Schliesser, Benson") writes:
Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit: the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes? If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by their respective (different) service providers (all other issues being equal) is one provider in a better position than the other?
If it's still common for one to be billed only for "highest of in vs. out" then there's no way to compare the benefits since there's always a "shadow" direction and it won't be symmetric among flow endpoints. -- Paul Vixie
Current thread:
- Fw: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Michael . Dillon (Oct 06)
- Re: Fw: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) JC Dill (Oct 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Schliesser, Benson (Oct 06)
- Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Paul Vixie (Oct 06)
- RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Michael . Dillon (Oct 07)
- RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Schliesser, Benson (Oct 07)
- Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Paul Vixie (Oct 07)