Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-17 Thread Owen DeLong
This assumes that there are no cooperatives providing settlement free peering which includes both peer and transit routes. Owen > On Feb 17, 2016, at 14:09 , Bill Woodcock wrote: > > Each bit traverses only one peering session, however, at the "top of its > trajectory" to use

Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-17 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> The premise above therefore devolves to: Since most of the traffic is to >> those networks, then most of the bits flow over contracted peerings. >> >> Perhaps “most” can be argued, but obviously a significant portion of

Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-17 Thread Bill Woodcock
Each bit traverses only one peering session, however, at the "top of its trajectory" to use a physical metaphor. The uphill and downhill sides are all transit. -Bill > On Feb 17, 2016, at 14:06, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> The premise above therefore

Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-17 Thread Owen DeLong
> The premise above therefore devolves to: Since most of the traffic is to > those networks, then most of the bits flow over contracted peerings. > > Perhaps “most” can be argued, but obviously a significant portion of all > peering bits flow over contracted sessions. Hopefully we can all

Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-16 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote: > On 2/12/16, 8:56 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Niels Bakker" > wrote: >> * bedard.p...@gmail.com (Phil Bedard) [Sat 13 Feb 2016, 01:40 CET]: >>> I was going

Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-16 Thread Livingood, Jason
On 2/12/16, 8:56 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Niels Bakker" wrote: >* bedard.p...@gmail.com (Phil Bedard) [Sat 13 Feb 2016, 01:40 CET]: >>I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free >>peering between large content

Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-12 Thread Livingood, Jason
How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like 50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up - could be any percentage.) Jason >On 2/10/16, 6:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf

re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-12 Thread Livingood, Jason
How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like 50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up - could be any percentage.) Jason PS - My email address has changed and

RE: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-12 Thread Phil Bedard
, February 12, 2016 11:41 AM To: North American Operators' Group Subject: re: PCH Peering Paper How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like 50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake

Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-12 Thread Niels Bakker
* bedard.p...@gmail.com (Phil Bedard) [Sat 13 Feb 2016, 01:40 CET]: I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free peering between large content providers and eyeball networks there are written agreements in place. I would have no clue on the volume percentage but it's not

Re: PCH Peering Paper

2016-02-10 Thread Fredrik Korsbäck
On 11/02/16 00:34, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules, > talking about myself.) > > The paper is: > > https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf > > I said “99.97%” of all peering