[171865] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blake Dunlap)
Thu May 15 14:55:20 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CF9A7235.D1764%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
From: Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:28:57 -0500
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your
customers are requesting that they send through you if you cannot
maintain a balanced peer relationship with them. It's shameful that
access networks are attempting to not pay for their leeching of mass
amounts of data in clear violation of standard expectations for
balanced peering agreements.
Oh... you meant something else?
-Blake
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Livingood, Jason
<Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, "Nick B" <nick@pelagiris.org<mailto:nick@pelagiris.o=
rg>> wrote:
>
> By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us=
to refuse to upgrade full peers"?
>
> Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constra=
in it to 1G, for example. What if a peer wants to go from a balanced relati=
onship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the relationship? Sh=
ould we just unquestionably toss out our published policy =E2=80=93 which i=
s consistent with other networks =E2=80=93 and ignore expectations for othe=
r peers?
>
> Jason
