nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:46:27 -0800
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic exchanged. If it becomes wildly lopsided in one direction, then it becomes more like paying for transit.
...
[*] 10 second explanation for those who do not understand: I hand you a small HTTP GET request, you carry it across the country. You had me a 1500 byte web page, I carry it across the country. My costs are much higher than yours, you need to compensate me for the additional costs.
Clearly, to balance out the traffic ratios, content providers should set their server MTUs to 64 bytes. That way, small HTTP request packets will be nicely balanced out by small HTTP reply packets. If the content providers also turn off SACK, and force ACKs for each packet, they can achieve nearly the perfect traffic ratios the eyeball networks seem to desire. Small packet one way, equivalent small packet the other way, and everyone is happy. Obviously those recent infidels pushing for the so-called "Jumbo Frames" here on NANOG were nothing more than shills for the eyeball networks, seeking to get more and more networks out of ratio, in an effort to get them to cough up money. Fie on them, I say--instead of JumboFrames, we need MicroFrames! Exchange points should start enforcing a maximum frame size of 64 bytes, to truly bring the internet into perfectly-balanced ratio-ness. Matt (*in search of forceps to extract a tongue planted far too forcefully into the cheek*)
Current thread:
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions, (continued)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Leo Bicknell (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Joe Provo (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Leo Bicknell (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Jeff Wheeler (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 29)
- Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 29)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] John Curran (Nov 30)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Owen DeLong (Nov 30)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Leo Bicknell (Nov 30)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Matthew Petach (Nov 30)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Leo Bicknell (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Jeff Kell (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Steven Fischer (Nov 29)
- Message not available
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Ben Butler (Nov 29)