[133830] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schultze)
Fri Dec 17 15:43:09 2010
From: Steve Schultze <sjs@princeton.edu>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimV321G8zA44OYzY1p1O2cAEm6Vh7rraEUt9R=Y@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:42:06 -0500
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 17, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Benson Schliesser
> <bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
>> I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but my guess: I suspect =
the proposal was along the lines of longest-path / best-exit routing by =
Level(3). In other words, if L(3) carries the traffic (most of the way) =
to the customer, then Comcast has no complaint--the costs can be more =
fairly distributed. The "modest investment" is probably in tools to =
evaluate traffic and routing metrics, to make this work. This isn't =
really *new* to the peering community, but it isn't normal either.
>=20
> That is a reasonable guess, but Level3's FCC filing yesterday spells
> out with certainty that Level3 did offer to "cold potato" traffic onto
> Comcast (it does not mention the technical means e.g. MED honoring,
> CDN smarts, or otherwise) and that Comcast refused.
> [...]
Comcast's latest:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=3D6016064677=
