3 ms·
Are you suggesting a system where, instead of settlement-free peering, peering between networks is on a pay-per-bit basis? I suppose that would also be consiste
by lutorm 12y ago
Are you suggesting a system where, instead of settlement-free peering, peering between networks is on a pay-per-bit basis? I suppose that would also be consistent with neutrality, as long as there is no discrimination between networks. In no instance should Netflix have to pay anything to anyone except their access provider.
- barrkel 12y agoThe trouble is that the cost of a packet is a function of its entire route, not simply size or quantity. The more packets that flow through a congested hop, the more that flow should be charged (whether to the sender or recipient). Peering with a network where the packets are not due to go through heavily contended routes shouldn't be a big problem, and nor should peering with a network where the routes for packets being interchanged have similar constraints. Probably, a totally fair system would involve so much accounting that most of the cost would be dominated by it. Let's not also forget that Netflix et al. don't always rely on peering. They can give their customers a better experience by directly attaching hardware to the ISP's network, i.e. edge caching, which itself involves contracts and negotiation, independent of any network neutrality concerns around packets swapped at peering.