[152549] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Wed May 2 05:31:17 2012
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>, Aleksi Suhonen
<nanog-poster@axu.tm>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:32:45 +0000
In-Reply-To: <D4F63B6B-0AF5-490C-A377-7144F4047625@exa-networks.co.uk>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> I (in the UK) had the same letter from LLNW yesterday, word for word.
Me too.
> However I must say that the wording of their letter is appalling
Agreed.
=20
> I am glad they are spending ton of money to upgrade their
> infrastructure.. but so am I.
Slightly odd though that they are upgrading their network and then de-peer=
ing everybody who takes < 1Gb/s from them.
I don't quite understand why a content DELIVERY network would want to do t=
his.
I'm not sure who's content they deliver but this does not seem like a part=
icularly great way to go about delivering it.=20
There was a network who commented earlier in the thread that they do 600Mb=
/s with them, that's not an insignificant level of traffic really, especia=
lly coming from a single CDN. I wonder if this not some slightly mis-infor=
med exec at LLNW who thought they found a great way to extract more money =
to deliver content that they have already been paid to deliver.
--
Leigh
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
