[171861] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Livingood, Jason)
Thu May 15 14:42:42 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 18:11:30 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAE7MFiJkbtmBwV5tKLKWewHAGC6n_qvqU7mBFFqeMvrV=MT21A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced y=
ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where do=
es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to sw=
itch off who uses it every other day, can I just say "forget our agreement =
=96 I=92m just going to drive the car myself every single day =96 its all m=
ine=94?
And as you say, =93interestingly enough only Comcast and Verizon are having=
this problem=94 someone else might say =93interestingly enough one content=
distributor is at the center of all of these issues.=94 I=92m frankly surp=
rised that no one is stepping back to try to understand what was and is dri=
ving those changes.
Jason
On 5/15/14, 1:43 PM, "Nick B" <nick@pelagiris.org<mailto:nick@pelagiris.org=
>> wrote:
Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a w=
ay to avoid technically throttling. Interestingly enough only Comcast and =
Verizon are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an e=
xample others will follow.
Nick
