[160412] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How far must muni fiber operators protect ISP competition?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Tue Feb 5 13:11:24 2013
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:11:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRw9j-dtety-n7Z78gFWNNY4763ScAUxWDcdeUEGn0fV1w@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
> On the data side that's certainly possible, but the content guys won't play
> ball on a shared L2 network. This actually undermines my position on how
> to architect your system, but sharing anything from one of the big content
> guys isn't something I've seen them allow as of yet. Organizations like
> TVN(Avail now?) or NCTC also require direct agreements and I've never seen
> them do anything at an aggregation level.
I'm aware of how pissy content providers/transport aggregators are likely
to be; I'm been involved in the mythTV project for about 7 years.
My point was that if any of them provide on-site equipment as, say, Akamai
do (and yes, I realize we're discussing real-time now, not caching), if
they have multiple clients in the same place, it's in *their* best interest
not to provision multiple racks just because they have contracts with
multiple providers; perhaps such racks would connect directly, and mentioning
my IX was a red-herring; my apologies for confusing the matter.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
