On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:51:02AM +0200, hannu.flinck@nsn.com 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature