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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
, 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
* 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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo