[129706] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Sep 16 16:52:46 2010
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:52:33 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <20100916.212821.74712800.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9/16/2010 2:28 PM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>
> If you want control: Don't buy the cheapest commodity product.
>
+1
Next we'll be arguing that akamai nodes are evil because they can have
better service levels than other sites. The p2p guys are also getting
special treatment, as they can grab files faster than the direct
download guy. Oh, and provider met google's bandwidth requirements for
peering, so their peering with google gives better service to google
than yahoo/hotmail; which was unfair to the provider who didn't meet the
requirements and has to go the long way around. :P
Provider may also have met ll's requirements, so peering accepted there,
and here come the better netflix streams. Of course, anywhere a provider
has a direct peer, they'll want to prioritize that traffic over any other.
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than
another. This totally screws with private peering and the variety of
requirements, as well as special services (such as akamai nodes). Many
of these cases aren't about saturation, but better connectivity between
content provider and ISP. Adding money or QOS to the equation is just
icing on the cake.
Jack
