[173410] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Netflix To Cogent To World
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Rothschild)
Wed Jul 23 13:02:47 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
In-Reply-To: <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:00:53 -0400
To: bob@FiberInternetCenter.com
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of =
commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, =
at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not.
I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a =
peering partner...
$0.02,
-a
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> =
wrote:
> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base =
and
> other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with =
Netflix
> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if =
direct
> peering is possible.
>=20
> Thank You
> Bob Evans
> CTO
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], =
given
>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
>>> *already*,
>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound =
traffic?
>>=20
>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with =
their
>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from =
pussies?
>>=20
>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
>>=20
>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would =
they
>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
>>=20
>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
>>=20
>> brandon
>>=20
>=20
>=20
