On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:51:02AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dino wrote > >It's the same answer I said when I was standing up at RRG. > >Providers will do whatever they can to attract traffic. They > >typically don't want to say no. The more traffic they attract > >the more peering they can get. And the business opportunities > >start from there. > > > > Many times the peering ISPs do not want to share their uplink transport > connection with their peers only their customer
Right. If they do, that's called transit (or "paid
peering" aka "partial transit").
> and peer links.
Right. That's called peering (if I understand you; the
conjunction [and] is a bit hard for me to parse).
In any event, your point is?
> The topology and location of the PTR matters. The PTR provider doesn't want
> to pay for traffic this not stemming from their customers but elsewhere.
Seems hard, if not impossible, to know/enumerate the
creative ways in which people will deploy stuff, or for
what reasons. If nothing else, history has taught us that
lesson. So while one can try, at this point its all
conjecture.
> (This is the very same issue that has hampered the deployment of
> Internet wide multicast.)
If I understand you, my experience has been somewhat
different.
BTW, I thought business models were explicitly out of
scope for the IETF (someone please correct me if I am
mistaken). Apparently the same is not true for the IRTF?
In any event, I can see analyzing where the costs in
a given model lie (and how they are distributed by a
given architecture/deployment), but debating how people
are going to run their businesses based on some abstract
understanding of the problem space doesn't seem like it
is going to yield anything actionable.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
