[171852] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Livingood, Jason)
Thu May 15 14:06:51 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
To: Nick B <nick@pelagiris.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 17:34:32 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAE7MFiLKVHOu8d6y2VRK8MjdCf4VD7vMge9wbEjSDpKdBBBUfg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, "Nick B" <nick@pelagiris.org<mailto:nick@pelagiris.org=
>> wrote:
By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us t=
o refuse to upgrade full peers"?
Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain=
it to 1G, for example. What if a peer wants to go from a balanced relation=
ship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the relationship? Shou=
ld we just unquestionably toss out our published policy =96 which is consis=
tent with other networks =96 and ignore expectations for other peers?
Jason
