Re: Direct as last resort

Antony writes:
> Sibling traffic costs us nothing, but getting the traffic from our
> uplink (parent) costs us $0.15 per meg of data. Australia typically
> uses a usage based pricing model (links are expensive compared to the
> USA and some other countries).
>
> Going DIRECT costs us $0.16 per meg which is why I'd like it as a
> last resort option.
>
> As a result, I'd rather get the data from the siblings even if it is
> (slightly) slower, then PARENT, then DIRECT.

  Makes sense. Bandwidth is a lot more expensive out here in Hawaii
too. (I live in envy of the mainland US ISPs who can say things like
"we'll just add another T3.") So we likewise try to offload our direct
Internet links as much as we can via private peering and news exchange,
etc.

  I hadn't thought in terms of this context because nobody else here is
doing anything with caching yet, AFAIK, so peering with caches at other
sites hasn't come up.
  -- Clifton

-- 
 Clifton Royston  --  LavaNet Systems Architect --  cliftonr@lava.net
        "An absolute monarch would be absolutely wise and good.  
           But no man is strong enough to have no interest.  
             Therefore the best king would be Pure Chance.  
              It is Pure Chance that rules the Universe; 
          therefore, and only therefore, life is good." - AC