[162996] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue May 14 21:25:30 2013
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <5192E190.2000007@vaxination.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 21:24:28 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 14, 2013, at 21:14 , Jean-Francois Mezei =
<jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> =08On 13-05-14 20:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> Since when is peering not part of the Internet?=20
>=20
> Yes, one car argue that an device with an IP address routable from the
> internet is part of the internet.
Can argue? How would you define the Internet?
> But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's
> intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the "Internet" =
nor
> does it cost the ISP transit capacity.
Transit capacity !=3D "Internet".
Plus you said even peering wasn't the Internet.
> Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache =
servers.
> Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point
> where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the =
internet.
"Truly"? You have interesting definitions.
I think you are trying to say "small ISPs have to pay to access =
$CONTENT, big ones do not". This is objectively false-to-fact.
If you are trying to say scale makes some things easier, then I'm sure =
most people would agree. But trying to define the Internet as transit =
capacity, or saying small ISPs can't peer, or anything of the sort is =
silly.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
