[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking
|> 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.
|Ok, this is interesting. Not quite as concrete and clear-cut as I had
|hoped, but a start. What do others think of this? Is there a way for us
|to evaluate whether this is a sufficient incentive?
I'm not quite convinced. Service providers are interested in one thing,
being profitable. Their revenues come from their customers. Since running
a PTR has clear non-zero costs, the provider should be able to see some
offsetting revenue or strategic advantage.
The theory proposed above seems based on the fact that providers want to
attract traffic. I infer that the thinking here is that more inbound
traffic would help offset unfavorable traffic balances, which would be
helpful for peering negotiations. In the case of customer traffic
approaching a PTR, this would seem to be no different, as the traffic would
be arriving at the ISP anyway. Thus, the benefit would seem to be for
non-customer traffic. However, for non-customer traffic, the PTR would
encapsulate/decapsulate and hairpin the traffic back outside of the
provider. In effect, this gives a way for the provider to attract new
traffic, both inbound and outbound, and not receive revenue for it. While I
can see that it might be of interest to some, I don't see the broad appeal.
Real operators should correct me if I'm off base.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg