[161188] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Comcast NOC Contact
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (R W)
Sun Mar 3 14:36:20 2013
From: R W <wingcomm@hotmail.com>
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 14:35:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <6212992.8198.1362326590992.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Yeah=2C I've been hitting congested links with several of my customers. Thi=
s was just a case of one of our customer's prefixes taking an extra long jo=
urney from one region to another.
Thank you to all who responded! I think we might on our way to remediating =
this small issue!
-Rob
> Date: Sun=2C 3 Mar 2013 11:03:10 -0500
> From: jra@baylink.com
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Comcast NOC Contact
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Mar 3=2C 2013=2C at 7:40 AM=2C Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote=
:
>=20
> > > For providers who have an overall asymmetric traffic profile towards
> > > Comcast=2C it's a matter of perspective as to whether you view this a=
s
> > > the providers sending Comcast traffic or Comcast customers pulling it=
.
> > > So it's hardly surprising that there are disagreements about who gets=
to pay
> > > the other for the interconnection arrangements.
>=20
> Saying that it's a matter of perspective is a false dichotomy.
>=20
> If the providers go away=2C the Comcast customers will pull traffic from=
=20
> other providers.
>=20
> If the *customers* go away...
>=20
> Nope=3B Comcast is acting as the agent of its customers to pull in traffi=
c
> they want to see=2C and if it isn't charging them enough for that=2C that=
is
> *Comcast's* problem. =20
>=20
> It's really a bright-line answer.
>=20
> Cheers=2C
> -- jra
> --=20
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylin=
k.com
> Designer The Things I Think RFC=
2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rove=
r DII
> St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647=
1274
>=20
=
