[171886] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keenan Tims)
Fri May 16 00:10:31 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Keenan Tims <ktims@stargate.ca>
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:17:22 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxaYO1SfnVwLiKDm5t7rBe=wQu8hLR_Fe+AiTQToE-45w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Their existing agreements notwithstanding, I believe the problem many have =
with Comcast's balanced ratio requirement is that they have 10s of millions=
of customers, all or almost all of whom are sold "unbalanced" services. In=
addition the majority of their customers are end users, who are also going=
to bias toward heavily inbound patterns (which is one of the reasons for t=
he asymmetric connections in the first place).=0A=
=0A=
As primarily an eyeball network with a token (8000 quoted) number of transi=
t customers it does not seem reasonable for them to expect balanced ratios =
on peering links. They are, effectively by their own choice of market, alwa=
ys going to have a heavily inbound traffic ratio. It seems to me that requi=
ring anything else is basically a way to give the finger to a potential pee=
r while claiming to be neutral. I find it hard to believe that Comcast woul=
d be running many balanced links (peering or transit) at all, except perhap=
s to other consumer ISPs.=0A=
=0A=
In today's environment there are inevitably going to be heavily inbound and=
heavily outbound networks. Content networks don't have any problem with SF=
I despite their ratio. Eyeball networks do. Both are in the position they a=
re because of the line of business they have respectively chosen. But the e=
yeball network is the only one that is explicitly and exclusively paid *to =
carry traffic*. IMO if the content network is willing to bring their conten=
t, for free, to the eyeball network's edge, this is to the benefit of the e=
yeball network more than content, in the absence of other "factors".=0A=
=0A=
In this case that factor appears to me to be "ad-hoc oligopoly". If custome=
rs had options and an easy path to switch, they would not tolerate this beh=
aviour when they can switch to a competitor who provides good service for t=
he bits they request. Content would gain a lot of leverage in this situatio=
n as they could help "educate" customers on alternatives, automatically and=
without paying a support agent. Of course we should be careful not to let =
the opposite situation occur either...=0A=
=0A=
Keenan=0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Scott Helms <khelms@zcor=
um.com>=0A=
Sent: May 15, 2014 12:54 PM=0A=
To: Joe Greco=0A=
Cc: nanog@nanog.org=0A=
Subject: Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP=0A=
=0A=
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> > So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain=0A=
> balanced y=3D=0A=
> > ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Wher=
e=0A=
> do=3D=0A=
> > es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?=0A=
>=0A=
> It doesn't strike you as a ridiculous promise to extract from someone?=0A=
>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
You could certainly say its ridiculous, but it is (and has been) the basis=
=0A=
for almost all peering arrangements in North America for several decades in=
=0A=
my personal experience. I believe that the practice came from the telco=0A=
world when large telephone companies would exchange traffic without billing=
=0A=
each other so long as the traffic was relatively balanced. You can imagine=
=0A=
AT&T and Sprint exchange toll traffic and so long as things we're fairly=0A=
close there wasn't a big imbalance of traffic to worry the financial folks=
=0A=
over and thus having to do exact accounting on each minute, which was=0A=
technically challenging 30 years ago.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
"Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what the next big=0A=
> thing next year will be but I promise that I won't host it on my network=
=0A=
> and cause our traffic to become lopsided."=0A=
>=0A=
> Wow. Is that what you're saying?=0A=
>=0A=
=0A=
That's not what happened. What happened is that Netflix went to Level 3=0A=
who already had a peering arrangement with Comcast which was built around=
=0A=
normal (roughly) balanced peering. It had been in place for years before=
=0A=
Netflix signed with Level 3 and worked, and was contracted this way, around=
=0A=
relatively balanced traffic. Once Netflix started sending most of their=0A=
traffic destined to Comcast end user through Level 3 things got out of=0A=
balance. Netflix still has a contract with Cogent (I believe that is the=
=0A=
correct one) or other provider that had previously been handling the bulk=
=0A=
of the Comcast directed traffic, but the Level 3 connection was cheaper for=
=0A=
Netflix. If anyone actually acted in bad faith it was, IMO, Level 3.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
>=0A=
> > To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree t=
o=0A=
> sw=3D=0A=
> > itch off who uses it every other day, can I just say "forget our=0A=
> agreement =3D=0A=
> > =3D96 I=3D92m just going to drive the car myself every single day =3D96=
its=0A=
> all m=3D=0A=
> > ine=3D94?=0A=
>=0A=
> Seems like a poor analogy since I'm pretty sure both parties on a peering=
=0A=
> can use the port at the same time.=0A=
>=0A=
=0A=
His point was you can't simply change a contract without having both=0A=
parties involved. Level 3 tried to do just that.=0A=
=0A=
>=0A=
> ... JG=0A=
> --=0A=
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net=
=0A=
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and]=0A=
> then I=0A=
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail=0A=
> spam(CNN)=0A=
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many=0A=
> apples.=0A=
>=0A=
