[147508] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Overall Netflix bandwidth usage numbers on a network?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Petach)
Mon Dec 12 20:44:53 2011
In-Reply-To: <77F26F9D-F271-4C37-B017-3EC4C7AF8117@lixfeld.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:43:48 -0800
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
To: Jason Lixfeld <jason@lixfeld.ca>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jason Lixfeld <jason@lixfeld.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2011-12-12, at 4:22 PM, Simon Lockhart <simon@slimey.org> wrote:
>
>> I guess most (i.e. those
>> which aren't Akamai) are more concerned with making money than with deli=
vering
>> a good service to the end user.
>
> Really? =A0I always thought that higher profits and buying transit were m=
utually exclusive relative to higher profits and openly peering.
>
> So what you are saying is that one stands to make more by paying upstream=
s for bit swapping? =A0How's that work?
>
> If the argument is that the opex required for maintaining peering relatio=
nships is too expensive relative to the direct and indirect cost of buying =
bandwidth, I love to be edumacated on how that math actually works because =
it makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'm somewhat assuming you're trolling here. :/
but just in case...
the lost revenue from peering with someone when you could be
charging them transit prices is the tradeoff being referred to
here; Level3 isn't in the business of paying upstreams for
bandwidth. (well, other than comcast, but that's a different
thread entirely. And yes, I suppose that would be me trolling.
Bad Matt!)
Matt
