[171406] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hugo Slabbert)
Mon Apr 28 12:29:22 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:29:13 -0700
From: Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <535e7a52.c647ec0a.4095.ffffbb4d@mx.google.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 =
you=20
>would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same=
=20
>reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it..=
=2E =20
=2E..and that would be fine as at that point we're talking about traffic=20
exchanged between two transit providers, i.e. Level3 providing transit for=
=20
Comcast and Cogent providing transit for Netflix. Settlement free peering =
and=20
traffic ratios between transit AS's for these two respective parties is a=
=20
different ball of wax from those some concepts in direct peering between th=
e=20
content provider and eyeball network.
Comcast is the destination network for the traffic; they're not providing=
=20
transit services to Netflix. Comcast needs to accept the Netflix traffic t=
hat=20
Comcast's customers are requesting *somehow*; I don't see why they get to=
=20
charge Netflix for a private peering relationship that's beneficial to both=
=20
sides.
--
Hugo
On Mon 2014-Apr-28 08:56:55 -0700, bedard.phil@gmail.com <bedard.phil@gmail=
=2Ecom> wrote:
>If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 =
you would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the sam=
e reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it.=
=2E. It is such a large amount of bandwidth these days it's not made up by=
other traffic.
>
>I am not saying any of it is right, but precedents in the past have led to=
this.
>
>Phil
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Jack Bates" <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net>
>Sent: =E2=80=8E4/=E2=80=8E28/=E2=80=8E2014 11:34 AM
>To: "Phil Bedard" <bedard.phil@gmail.com>; "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.l=
ists@gmail.com>; "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
>Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they coulde=
nshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
>
>On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote:
>> People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have
>> been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been aroun=
d.
>> It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network
>> customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone
>> else's network.
>Yeah. It's a scam. Comcast can't do balanced peering. Their customers
>are not symmetrical.
>
>> It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even
>> starting to include NF as an app on their STB. There are also many who =
do
>> peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios. The
>> key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we wi=
ll
>> see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider
>> facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters.
>>
>>
>Netflix is happy to assist with caching. The thing is, Comcast doesn't
>care about that. What they care about is that their last mile is getting
>saturated and they have to pay money to upgrade it. Costs are being
>shoved onto netflix and similar to justify that.
>
>This is compared to the small ISP who is just happy to get a peering or
>cache to save money only on their transit fees.
>
>
>Jack
--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=7SGZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh--
