[173413] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Netflix To Cogent To World
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hugo Slabbert)
Wed Jul 23 13:44:05 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net>
From: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:43:42 -0700
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
...damn; hit Adam in the replies but missed the list...:
> With this war of blog posts =E2=80=94 perhaps Netflix should ask this que=
stion:
>
> Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach
Comcast=E2=80=99s and Verizon=E2=80=99s customers?
Netflix switching transit providers seems like a bad idea at this point.
Comcast: "See?! Now what if we had spent all this time and money to augment
our capacity to Cogent/Level3 to handle the inbound Netflix traffic? Now we
have to do a bunch of work to upgrade/migrate infrastructure over to
$NEWTRANSIT just because Netflix felt like it?!"
I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument, but most of this war is
about PR anyway...
--
Hugo
Hugo Slabbert
cell: 604.617.3133
email: hugo.slabbert@slabnet.com
"If kindness doesn't work, try more kindness." Ch=C3=B6gyam Trungpa Rinpoch=
e
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
> Comcast=E2=80=99s position is that they could buy transit from some obscu=
re
> networks who don=E2=80=99t really have a viable transit offering, such as=
DT and
> China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to
> scale up traffic.
>
> (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood=E2=80=99s posts to broadban=
dreports,
> unfortunately I don=E2=80=99t have a citation handy.)
>
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
>
> > With this war of blog posts =E2=80=94 perhaps Netflix should ask this q=
uestion:
> >
> > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reac=
h
> Comcast=E2=80=99s and Verizon=E2=80=99s customers?
> >
> > -P
> >
> > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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, a=
t
> 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 Netfl=
ix
> >>> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if
> direct
> >>> peering is possible.
> >>>
> >>> Thank You
> >>> Bob Evans
> >>> CTO
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> 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?
> >>>>
> >>>> 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?
> >>>>
> >>>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
> >>>>
> >>>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would
> they
> >>>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
> >>>>
> >>>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime=
.
> >>>>
> >>>> brandon
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
