[132711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Lyon)
Tue Nov 30 10:17:04 2010
In-Reply-To: <4CF512E1.2070603@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:16:30 -0500
From: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
To: William Warren <hescominsoon@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
William,
Why be concerned? Operators have pulled this trick several times over
the course of history and each time the good guys prevail. It proves
that the system works.
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:06 AM, William Warren
<hescominsoon@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>>
>> On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-stateme=
nt-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=3DMW_news_stmp>
>>>
>>> I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects
>>> operational aspects of the 'Net.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay
>>> to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product wh=
ich
>>> has content as well. =A0I am certain all the content providers on this =
list
>>> are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlem=
ent
>>> free peering tomorrow. =A0(L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim th=
e Vyvx
>>> or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is
>>> putting up a "toll booth" on the Internet, would they?)
>>>
>>> --
>>> TTFN,
>>> patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> So in this particular game of chicken, Comcast wins. =A0Shame that L3 ag=
reed
>> to this, sets a bad precedent. =A0I have to imagine that Comcast would h=
ave
>> been the worse for wear, their phone lines would have lit up like a
>> Christmas tree -- why can't I access...?
>>
>> jy
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
>>
>> iF4EAREIAAYFAkz04QkACgkQxvthcni5E2+LwgD+NAie3r+r1dniJNRPMVKAJEj7
>> BQIympMzCXji7NveWicA/ReSLZgW92LT4cY/yMnsw3EkrD8mL1rkhAzicifOoCwe
>> =3DGPm+
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
> This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. =A0If the
> traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the
> internet really working as designed? =A0I don't think so. =A0Peering has =
become
> the gateway to the ultimate in network control...while it's the provider'=
s
> prerogative who access their network..peering has become a club for acces=
s
> and has become the instrument of removing the basic design wins of the
> internet.
>
>
--=20
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
