3 ms·

Hmm, I guess I don't understand why sending packets to an end user over an ISP is not "transit", but I'll go ahead and admit I know very little about this subje

by kentonv 12y ago

Hmm, I guess I don't understand why sending packets to an end user over an ISP is not "transit", but I'll go ahead and admit I know very little about this subject and am probably wrong.

benaiah 12y ago
It seems that the peering arrangements typically pay for transfer through one network to another, not to get data to the end consumer. I don't know enough about the issue to say whether that's true or not, but that seems to be the argument they're making.
nitrogen 12y ago
If it were considered "transit" in the same sense as delivering packets from one network to another across large distances, then consumer Internet access should be free because it's always biased in favor of receiving rather than transmitting bytes. Verizon should even be paying its customers to accept the extra bits they get.
- kentonv 12y ago
  That doesn't seem entirely obvious, since last-mile infrastructure is a completely different beast from backbones. But yeah, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about at this point. Sorry.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    I think you understand more than you admit ;-). The last-mile infrastructure is indeed a completely different beast, and Verizon is last-mile infrastructure. So backbone-to-backbone might be symmetric, but backbone-to-last-mile should never have been expected to be symmetric.
nishonia 12y ago
ISPs pay for transit, tier 1 networks do not (by definition). Level 3 is definitely a tier 1 network, but Verizon is acting as both a tier 1 and an ISP. It isn't a very complex problem, tier 1 networks don't pay transit.
- kentonv 12y ago
  I guess that makes a certain arbitrary kind of sense... :)
toast0 12y ago
Peering is when you send packets from your network (or your customers' networks) to my network (or my customers' networks). Transit is when you send packets from your network (or your customers' networks) to my network, and I agree to deliver it, regardless of if it's within my network, my customer's networks or beyond my network (via peering or my own transit connections). Peering is historically settlement free at public exchanges and in private connections with balanced traffic. When a private peering is not balanced, historically the peering would be disconnected, but in the mid 2000's, paid peering started showing up more frequently as an option. Paid peering is often less expensive than transit, but it depends on the networks involved and the volume.
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
Transit - I send you data and you deliver it to another ISP or backbone provider. Not transit - I send you data and you deliver it to someone in your own network.
- kentonv 12y ago
  Yeah, the thing is, I don't consider myself to be part of my ISP's network. I consider my ISP to be "transit"ing packets from the internet to my network. :) But I guess that's not the accepted definition.

by kentonv 12y ago

Hmm, I guess I don't understand why sending packets to an end user over an ISP is not "transit", but I'll go ahead and admit I know very little about this subject and am probably wrong.

benaiah 12y ago

It seems that the peering arrangements typically pay for transfer through one network to another, not to get data to the end consumer. I don't know enough about the issue to say whether that's true or not, but that seems to be the argument they're making.

nitrogen 12y ago

If it were considered "transit" in the same sense as delivering packets from one network to another across large distances, then consumer Internet access should be free because it's always biased in favor of receiving rather than transmitting bytes. Verizon should even be paying its customers to accept the extra bits they get.

kentonv 12y ago
That doesn't seem entirely obvious, since last-mile infrastructure is a completely different beast from backbones. But yeah, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about at this point. Sorry.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  I think you understand more than you admit ;-). The last-mile infrastructure is indeed a completely different beast, and Verizon is last-mile infrastructure. So backbone-to-backbone might be symmetric, but backbone-to-last-mile should never have been expected to be symmetric.

nishonia 12y ago

ISPs pay for transit, tier 1 networks do not (by definition). Level 3 is definitely a tier 1 network, but Verizon is acting as both a tier 1 and an ISP. It isn't a very complex problem, tier 1 networks don't pay transit.

kentonv 12y ago
I guess that makes a certain arbitrary kind of sense... :)

toast0 12y ago

Peering is when you send packets from your network (or your customers' networks) to my network (or my customers' networks). Transit is when you send packets from your network (or your customers' networks) to my network, and I agree to deliver it, regardless of if it's within my network, my customer's networks or beyond my network (via peering or my own transit connections). Peering is historically settlement free at public exchanges and in private connections with balanced traffic. When a private peering is not balanced, historically the peering would be disconnected, but in the mid 2000's, paid peering started showing up more frequently as an option. Paid peering is often less expensive than transit, but it depends on the networks involved and the volume.

TheCoelacanth 12y ago

Transit - I send you data and you deliver it to another ISP or backbone provider. Not transit - I send you data and you deliver it to someone in your own network.

kentonv 12y ago
Yeah, the thing is, I don't consider myself to be part of my ISP's network. I consider my ISP to be "transit"ing packets from the internet to my network. :) But I guess that's not the accepted definition.