[172880] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Jul 12 01:19:10 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRx0yqsPGPDd1VppTXYi63TrTmjg0jXNXWfq=4xvyZn=SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:19:01 -0700
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I was speaking specifically of the cases where they are already grouped =
at a central location such as the 9 in Salt Lake City or the 19 in =
Denver mentioned in the example to which I responded.
I=92m pretty sure that in the case where they are already grouped into a =
less populous exchange point, there is no issue of geography, =
especially, e.g. SLC or DEN as mentioned.
Owen
On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> That's because you're not thinking about the geography involved. =
Where possible the smaller operators often do form groups and =
partnerships, but creating networks that serve more than a 3-4 operators =
often means covering more distance than if the operators simply go =
directly to the tier 1 ISP individually. There have been many attempts =
at creating networks that provide that kind of service but the economics =
are often bad.
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
> Scott Helms=20
> Vice President of Technology=20
> ZCorum=20
> (678) 507-5000=20
> --------------------------------=20
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms=20
> --------------------------------=20
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
>=20
> > On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> =46rom another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you =
who
> >> don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years
> >> http://www.lariat.net/)
> >
> > While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix =
regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this =
tidbit from two months ago:
> >
> > =
http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-veriz=
on-wont-talk-to-small-isps/
> >
> > As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of =
http://lariat.net/peering existing, =
https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what =
I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to =
http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=3D2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm =
not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 =
wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a =
bad joke at best.
> >
> > Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include =
my current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are =
in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of =
those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it.
> >
> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a =
pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that =
matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
> >
> > Jima
>=20
> I=92m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don=92t form =
consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a =
larger remote exchange.
>=20
> For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a =
circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los =
Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, =
the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly =
low per peer.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>=20
