Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I am told that
1) The set of traffic allowed is more nuanced and varied than just the 
two categories of transit and peer.
2) If I have understand your description properly, it looks similar to 
the frequent "valley free" assumption.  And there are multiple papers 
that make it clear that the actual paths are not "valley free".  (Sorry, 
I do not have pointers to the papers.  I am not actually a researcher.)

Yours,
Joel

On 3/5/14, 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> My understanding is that the packet forwarding paths, and the money
>> exchanges, are more complex than the picture you painted.  Your picture
>> matches the general theory.  However, I have repeatedly been told that the
>> reality does not match that theory.
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> I'll state that the settlement fees involved in common peering
> arrangements (peering as defined in my post) are irrational, couched
> in the language of fairness but based entirely on what the
> participants believe they can get away with. I have taken that into
> consideration with the structures I'll propose for procedural
> aggregation.
>
> Are you aware of any other specific divergence between the financial
> structure I described and the reality on the ground? What is it?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>