[133026] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The scale of streaming video on the Internet.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Fri Dec 3 12:35:15 2010
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:35:02 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimv8bz=ee4ivSLmK_Ri9d8Av0T5DJi_kQUdznkE@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:39:32AM -0500, Christopher =
Morrow wrote:
> right, that was the point(s) I was trying to make... sadly I didn't
> make them I guess.
Well, I wasn't 100% sure, so best to confirm.
But it all goes to the heart of Network Neutrality. It's easy to set up
the extreme straw men on both sides:
- If Netflix had a single data center in Seattle it is unreasonable for
them to expect Comcast to settlment free peer with them and then haul
the traffic to every local market.
- If Netflix pays Akamai (or similar) to place the content in all local=20
markets saving Comcast all of the backbone costs it is unreasonable for
Comcast to then charge them.
The question is, what in the middle of those two is fair? That
seems to be what the FCC is trying to figure out. It's an extremely
hard question, I've pondered many business and technical ideas
proposed by a lot of great thinkers, and all of them have significant
problems.
At a high level, I think peering needs to evolve in two very important
ways:
- Ratio needs to be dropped from all peering policies. It made sense
back when the traffic was two people e-mailing each other. It was
a measure of "equal value". However the net has evolved. In the
face of streaming audio and video, or rich multimedia web sites
Content->User will always be wildly out of ratio. It has moved from
a useful measure, to an excuse to make Content pay in all
circumstances.
- Peering policies need to look closer at where traffic is being dropped
off. Hot potato was never a good idea, it placed the burden on the
receiver and "propped up" ratio as a valid excuse. We need more=20
cold potato routing, more peering only with regional ASN's/routes.
Those connecting to the eyeball networks have a responbility to get
the content at least in the same general areas as the end user, and
not drop it off across the country.
If large ISP's really wanted to get the FCC off their back they would
look at writing 21st century peering policies, rather than trying to
keep shoehoring 20th century ones into working with a 21st century
traffic profile.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD)
iQIVAwUBTPkqRrN3O8aJIdTMAQL6Uw/+I1Jqs3TbPgWbxBOiY6eciFwF/zVyzMZT
tnT0Ys//bqEStOIn164vUC6muiPPoPpTTMWqC2xGdxflea4qNYotp3FjKIKoigIX
aGqT9jlmFcd/PsN+e8LdBwylTFg6jZmy+/cXEzKdOMXpkK2qkBbr5Ci4eFGg6vUP
7lAlzBLjZY7WH0Pi3aROMqeLhzhddmRtoUbPf+u8EKOLTq8n2mahEWWrs8fbvW8P
+692T5u4OQ/nQOT+JCzA1FKAYcP0vKQCg4WhpD3Yyd0RNFvA8fyQKNbpbXkIb/Vu
XXcZfR6ftUZGNW3F76pcwmYors2qBYWAfURWL7pv0SqEa7xhoxSFIF5WOVVjX3V8
AzHL0RChJbL8NGd9HEiFyJqFwS2d8m+Ud8Xd0CeL7GHpGn0HqsZgI4WWPsmtiTcc
RtiTqDx3MOq5mDWiuvJPn13aCsOIQ6YzvtZjgVfwmh1nKpYs7N2e9ZzjrF0FjB9Z
klu73kMZ8UK+UniqDuSHrmjX4HfQVhGNjt1bWEg00VhFD0qrGaisZhlffz8MgQjo
EFhgZq/DaNsyP+aft/wcEyyQexNIKAoyE/MaDF5LCmXpQVFvcVYR1URQ16bVs7wy
8nu2JzCfP5uku8vA8mhhGqejUkqaObLBNLUrJ/vyikciI7B0YxRUiMniyeeZra8B
ZfkQfHzJrL0=
=K2C2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s--
