[133846] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Sat Dec 18 01:28:50 2010
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:28:43 -0600
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Patrick Giagnocavo <patrick@zill.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D0C4F93.6020605@zill.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 01:07:15AM -0500, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>=20
> Note that Comcast has never said that the Level3/Netflix issue is=20
> about users exceeding their allotted bandwidth (currently at about=20
> 250GB/month for residential); presumably, were a Comcast user to use=20
> 249GB of bandwidth downloading cute pictures of cats, Comcast would=20
> have no objection.
I believe they want the cat people to pay too, it's just easier to go=20
after Netflix first.
Lets say for a moment that Comcast's overall ratio with its customers is=20
approximately the same as their ratio in the leaked Tata graphs (yes I=20
know that this proves nothing, but lets just assume it for a moment),=20
i.e. 5:1. They then ask that every network who sends them traffic, even=20
their transit providers (in the case of Level 3) be under 2:1. What is=20
the point of insisting on a ratio that is not supported by the traffic=20
their customers actually request? Because it gives them a convenient=20
excuse to demand payment from nearly everyone on the Internet for being=20
out of ratio, and to restrict capacity to those who do not pay.
With so many transit ports running hot, and even peering ports running=20
hot as in the recent example where they intentionally turned down Global=20
Crossing capacity (which they claim is settlement free) and CAUSED=20
congestion, the ISP who hosts the cute cat pictures may have little=20
choice but to pay Comcast for access, or risk losing their cute cat=20
hosting business to someone else who is willing to do so.
I've also seen Comcast ignore several offers to honor MEDs or accept=20
more-specifics from networks who DO meet their published peering=20
requirements in every way except ratios, so I don't think they're=20
interested in technical solutions a potential transport cost imbalance=20
either. If it was about anything other than trying to extract a toll=20
=66rom content providers, one of these technical solutions would clearly=20
have been better for them then continuing to force the traffic into=20
their congested transit ports, which they not only pay for, but then=20
also do the backhaul for across their own network.
BTW, they rejected my very nice comment on their blog asking if they=20
would be willing to share the graphs of their transit provider=20
interfaces (which are NOT peering relationships, and not under NDA) to=20
back up their claims that the published graphs are false, so I'm=20
positive yours isn't going to get through. :)
--=20
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
