nanog mailing list archives
Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 13:26:07 -0400
On 5/1/12, Dominik Bay <db () rrbone net> wrote:
Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN: ---->8---- Greetings, Limelight Networks [has] recently updated our requirements for settlement-free peering This letter is to notify you that yyy no longer meets our minimum requirements.
Proposed solution: Greetings, Where settlement-free peering has been offered but rejected, YYY moves all data traffic transiting that AS through a single minimum-cost Internet connection (cough Cogent cough) with the attendant impact to reliability. We appreciate the notice of depeering and will endeavor to identify and advise those making paid use of our respective services as to the impending impact to their activities. On the technical side you can only easily enforce that for outbound traffic. Essentially filter the routes containing their AS except from your minimum cost link. Intentionally degraded service can be better than flat refusal. Communication is two-way so even though the CDN sends more than it receives this is still a credible threat. Your customer sees perfectly good connectivity everywhere else and it isn't a complete disconnect so your customer assumes its "their" Internet connection rather than his.
I totally understand that some companies might not be able to handle sub-5Mbps peering sessions, be it technical or organisational, but >=100Mbps should be worth any effort, as long as it improves the network.
If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router and pay you for the staff hours to set it up, there should be *no* situation in which I'm willing to accept your traffic from an upstream Internet link but am unwilling to engage in otherwise settlement-free peering with you. Your customers have paid you to connect to me and my customers have paid me to connect to you. Double-billing the activity by either of us collecting money from the other is just plain wrong. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Dominik Bay (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Steven Noble (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Dominik Bay (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. William Herrin (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Patrick W. Gilmore (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Dominik Bay (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Leo Bicknell (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Dominik Bay (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Jerry Dent (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Patrick W. Gilmore (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Jerry Dent (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Leo Bicknell (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Jerry Dent (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Patrick W. Gilmore (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. Steven Noble (May 01)
- Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too. William Herrin (May 01)