Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: We've never been asked to POP that location. what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be in coresite and defunct. there is some any2 exchange claiming to be the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock. is there actually a significant local exchange in the denver area, and not some marketing department with an mpls tunnel? i am having a hard time finding it, web site, traffic, tscs, ... you know, like https://www.seattleix.net/, the dinky 250g one up in seattle to which i am used. It's now called Any2 Denver: http://www.coresite.com/solutions/interconnection/Peering-Exchanges/ANY2/ANY2-Peering-Participants http://www.coresite.com/locations/denver http://www.coresite.com/resources/datasheet-facilities-de1-rev8 We're on it, and it's finally doing enough traffic to warrant a 10G port now. But you're right, it's nowhere in the same league as its bigger cousins. Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street address for it anywhere among their literature. :( Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution. welcome to nanog. the list is a test of one's ability to find the substance amidst the flack, this oft-repeated discussion being notable. i wonder what we get if we pass the test. Awww...I got a rock. :( randy Matt (with apologies to Charles Schultz)
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
In message alpine.deb.2.02.1407140734410.7...@uplift.swm.pp.se, Mikael Abraha msson writes: On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Brett Glass wrote: My customers do not want me to creatively find ways to extract additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. The Netflix users either have to pay to you, or they have to pay to Netflix. Now, if you're paying $20 per megabit/s/month then you and your users are victims of lack of competition in your area. In properly developed places in the world with working competition, bandwidth prices are around $0.5-5/megabit/s/month. With those levels, you would have much less problem covering the cost of transit and your customers could use the service as much as they want because on margin, producing more bandwidth doesn't cost too much. At $20, I can understand that you're hurting. However, you paying $20 isn't Netflix problem. I don't see how Netflix could be re-imbursing you for your bandwidth costs, because it's not their fault either. So, the real problem you should spend your energy on is why are you paying so much for bandwidth, not going after Netflix. Since this is probably not something you can fix short term, I see no other option than to externalise your high margin cost to customers by imposing a monthly cap on usage and charging more for the people using the service more. You need to make sure your reveue model matches your expenditure model. And in some parts of the world bandwidth caps are the norm even for terrestial lines. My DOCIS home line has a 120G (down + up on this plan) limit then it is rate limited for the rest of the month. I don't hit the 120G limit though I regularly go over 60G. If I need more bandwidth I would go up to the next tier. This gives me a fixed price as well as well defined service expectations. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: [...] If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. --Brett Glass That would be awesome! If you find a way to obtain premium content that subscribers will pay for that doesn't include incredibly restrictive licensing terms that require you to account for every stream watched (including those streamed from downstream cache devices), I'm right there ready. Unfortunately, I suspect you'll find the rights holders who own the shows aren't willing to let their videos be served through a CDN that doesn't maintain draconian control over every stream (ie, that doesn't allow third party, uncontrolled caching). So, you may be able to build such a CDN; but the only content you may find that you can populate it with are cute cat videos recycled from last week's Youtube footage--which nobody wants to pay for. :( Matt
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Hi, Here is a different tale from another small ISP. We quite like Netflix (and HBO Nordic and all the other streaming services). We are a FTTH provider and services like Netflix is why people are buying our service instead of going with 4G LTE or ADSL. Without content we have nothing. Yes we have the same problems. Netflix does not peer in our city, in fact they do not peer in our country(!). We are too small for an appliance. Yes I really think Netflix should peer in Copenhagen, as going to Stockholm through 1000 km of fiber is not really an option. But when we are done whining about that, I have to say that paying transit to get Netflix is not prohibitive expensive. We pay 0.5 USD/Mbps. Our margins are not so poor that we can not afford to buy the content our users want. Yes buy content - if we were a TV network we also would have to pay for the content. Without content there is no need for our service. The other ISP seems to be paying 20 USD/Mbps and that is their error. They failed to find proper transit. I notice that Hurricane Electric is present at the IX mentioned, so I am quite sure they could get cheap transit, if they would just care to actually get some quotes. Regards, Baldur
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Software is... herrr configurable. Maybe Netflix could be convinced so their box had a switch from complete catalog hosting / caching most used data. I get from this discussion thread that small ISP feel having these box download the whole catalog is more than what their customers (1000) need. Moving this discussion away from net neutrality (that seems what netflix is doing in public anouncements) to how these boxes handle and operate would be better for everyone. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Monday, July 14, 2014, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com javascript:; wrote: [...] If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. --Brett Glass That would be awesome! If you find a way to obtain premium content that subscribers will pay for that doesn't include incredibly restrictive licensing terms that require you to account for every stream watched (including those streamed from downstream cache devices), I'm right there ready. Unfortunately, I suspect you'll find the rights holders who own the shows aren't willing to let their videos be served through a CDN that doesn't maintain draconian control over every stream (ie, that doesn't allow third party, uncontrolled caching). So, you may be able to build such a CDN; but the only content you may find that you can populate it with are cute cat videos recycled from last week's Youtube footage--which nobody wants to pay for. :( Matt Nailed it, Matt, 100%
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
The box doesn't even download 10% of the whole catalog and churns less than 1% a day. Obviously our demand curve is proprietary information, but I can assure you that a lot of people - engineers, mathematicians, etc. have looked at and improved the algorithm - but we are still constantly working to make it better. If you look at boxes like Qwilt, which is a universal flow-through cache, the best they can get is ~30% offload with Netflix traffic (in the real world, not in their lab). With multiple different encodes (driven by differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact same thing are relatively low. The law of large numbers rules the game. -Dave On Monday, July 14, 2014, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote: Software is... herrr configurable. Maybe Netflix could be convinced so their box had a switch from complete catalog hosting / caching most used data. I get from this discussion thread that small ISP feel having these box download the whole catalog is more than what their customers (1000) need. Moving this discussion away from net neutrality (that seems what netflix is doing in public anouncements) to how these boxes handle and operate would be better for everyone. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 14 July 2014 13:44, Dave Temkin d...@temk.in wrote: With multiple different encodes (driven by differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact same thing are relatively low. The law of large numbers rules the game. -Dave What are the chances of performing transcoding on the device rather than sending multiple copies to it? It seems that would save bandwidth without risking any licensing issues. Dan
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 14, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Daniel Ankers md1...@md1clv.com wrote: On 14 July 2014 13:44, Dave Temkin d...@temk.in wrote: With multiple different encodes (driven by differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact same thing are relatively low. The law of large numbers rules the game. -Dave What are the chances of performing transcoding on the device rather than sending multiple copies to it? It seems that would save bandwidth without risking any licensing issues. In my experience the bandwidth is typically the lowest part of the cost equation. Why transcode on 1k nodes when you can do it once and distribute it at lower cost, including in electricity to run the host CPU. Centralized transcoding on dedicated hardware makes sense. - Jared
Re: ESPN worldcup streaming traffic
On Jul 13, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.net wrote: Hi I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and wonder how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting to see people who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This very well be one of the biggest watched via Internet event of all the times. Mehmet Here's some detailed analysis with many graphs showing the inferences with various matches and bandwidth. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/internet-traffic-during-the-world-cup-2014 - Jared
Multi-Vendor Configuration Pusher
I have a chunk of code for a multi-vendor configuration push tool under the Apache 2.0 license. Some of you may be interested. https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/ This is an easily extensible framework on top of paramiko and pexpect in Python for distributing configuration to (or running commands on) devices. Currently we have the following vendor targets: * aruba * brocade * cisconx * ciscoxr * hp (procurve) * ios * junos * generic ssh I have a thin wrapper around these vendor implementations which allows for threaded pushes and a couple small operational conveniences, but would appreciate any feedback https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/issues/list and testing. Please treat this as you would any *new* code -- do not consider it production quality. This project and Capirca https://code.google.com/p/capirca/ go together like beans and cornbread, if you're into that sort of thing. Thanks, Ryan
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Jay Ashworth wrote: [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] Jay, Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say? Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate demand. 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit networks in the middle. 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys should pay. 5. Verizon and Comcast are big enough to say Netflix pays - with Netflix making a visible stink about it. 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the little guys you pay. And yes, they're making it a little easier by providing the CDN boxes. 7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of stuff. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: 7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of stuff. I think here is where many of us may disagree. While the current (public) dispute between Verizon and Netflix is fun for everyone to point fingers at saying look here, there is a problem, the market also mostly works. Verizon and Netflix seem to have reached (per press reports) an agreement and the largest problem today is the lack of ability to turn-up these ports quickly. Some market players move at light-speed, others at more glacial paces. I've been paying close attention to this for a variety of reasons. I've heard stories of some incumbents taking double-digit months to provision these types of services to correct congestion. I'm expecting the resolution time-scale to be much longer than was seen with the Comcast - Netflix connections. it would not surprise me if it took 18 months to provision these ports. (I recall phoning ATT once asking for 100m service at a commercial address and it took a swat-team of people on the phone to tell me they would be 4x/mo what I was paying.. I politely told them they were too expensive and to not schedule a 8 person conference call for a basic service level). - Jared
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- Original Message - From: Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net (Yes, yes, I know, feeding the troll, etc.) I'd like to note for the record, Bill, that I don't think this conversation is in fact troll-feeding; I think that the accumulated weight of various reasoned explanations as to why the situation is the way we see it has value in the long term, in changing what people will try to get away with. And in any event, I started the thread; while I may have been rabble-rousing, I wasn't trolling. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- Original Message - From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com It's now called Any2 Denver: Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street address for it anywhere among their literature. :( It's in a closet in the basement of a parking garage. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- Original Message - From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org And in some parts of the world bandwidth caps are the norm even for terrestial lines. My DOCIS home line has a 120G (down + up on this plan) limit then it is rate limited for the rest of the month. I don't hit the 120G limit though I regularly go over 60G. If I need more bandwidth I would go up to the next tier. This gives me a fixed price as well as well defined service expectations. And as much as I am not a fan of usage-based pricing -- and as often as I disagree with Mark :-) -- I don't have any problem with *that* approach: You get a big first cap, and then you rate limit to something suitable for everything except bulk transfer, and you can buy a bigger cap. As long as that first cap is reasonable -- and 120GB is, even for me -- then it's not a real hassle. The problem is a) putting the limit in the right place (x% of the customers consume y% of the total throughput per month) and b) selling it to existing accounts. It won't affect 100-x% of the customers, and of those, some percentage less than 100% will complain. Is that acceptable? Depends. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- Original Message - From: Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net Jay Ashworth wrote: [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] Jay, Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say? Certainly. Just full disclosure: I'm as motivated to reply to this as I am *because* I already have a hard-on for VZN. :-) Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate demand. Correct. 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit networks in the middle. 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys should pay. There's argument about whether VZN's claims are reasonable, and I tend to fall on the they are not, even though I don't like VZN anyway side; this thread was as much a sanity check as anything. 5. Verizon and Comcast are big enough to say Netflix pays - with Netflix making a visible stink about it. Yup. 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the little guys you pay. And yes, they're making it a little easier by providing the CDN boxes. Fair amount easier I would say, but I don't think we have enough empirical evidence either way, at least not in this thread. 7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of stuff. I hope that it doesn't come to that. Regulation is horrible. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet. You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were on the internet? An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: To Be On the Internet March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- Original Message - From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were on the internet? An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: To Be On the Internet March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 Oh, *sure* Dave; write your own RFC just so you can refer to it in an argument, 19 years later... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
We inquired about space power in the location that Brett mentions (Level3) as well as the Coresite location. We were told there was no power to be had in either building, hence we went for the third option. We have transport options available back to both should we need it. That said, that shows what a messed up market Denver is - there is definitely pent up demand but if Netflix can't even get space and power there's clearly none left. For years we were promised that Coresite was building a giant new campus, but they seem to have all but abandoned it. -Dave On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: We've never been asked to POP that location. what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be in coresite and defunct. there is some any2 exchange claiming to be the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock. is there actually a significant local exchange in the denver area, and not some marketing department with an mpls tunnel? i am having a hard time finding it, web site, traffic, tscs, ... you know, like https://www.seattleix.net/, the dinky 250g one up in seattle to which i am used. Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution. welcome to nanog. the list is a test of one's ability to find the substance amidst the flack, this oft-repeated discussion being notable. i wonder what we get if we pass the test. randy
Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big guys. Thoughts? Cheers, -Benson On Jul 13, 2014 3:59 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Just an observation: I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks. It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin fighting. In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, could people please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!! Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?! And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the images please be generated locally and downloaded off hours (whatever off hours meant on the internet) or even shipped via tape etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!! Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb. Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know. And games OMG games. I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in physics which is where that was coming from.) And the public getting on the internet (ahem.) On and on. Now it's video streaming. And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this Internet of Things idea, too many people conversing with their toaster-ovens. My comment has always been the same: There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into bread lines. I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how to bake more bread. This too shall pass. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: paleolithic inquiry
On Jul 12, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Sean Lazar kn...@toaster.net wrote: I think we should paint the garden shed blue... I will say I'm starting to see a larger number of devices in the marketplace and locations where cellular data are making sense to replace POTS as OOB. The problem I always have is, if you are going to use it as OOB, where does it connect back to. Many of them want to VPN into a few points, but without knowing the ongoing state of their ip connectivity, one doesn't want to end up as the upstream for your oob :) You also need considerations akin to rfc2182 as well. - Jared
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 14, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: In my experience the bandwidth is typically the lowest part of the cost equation. Why transcode on 1k nodes when you can do it once and distribute it at lower cost, including in electricity to run the host CPU. Centralized transcoding on dedicated hardware makes sense. - Jared Except perhaps for the (current discussion) small rural ISP. The bandwidth scaling equations out in Ruralistan have never been the same as in large metros. You see this in wireless delivered performance as well. Netflix is probably not the straw that broke the camel's back, but it's The Thing Du Jour which one can point at and criticize, so it 's becoming a focal point. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 07/14/2014 09:42 AM, George Herbert wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: In my experience the bandwidth is typically the lowest part of the cost equation. Why transcode on 1k nodes when you can do it once and distribute it at lower cost, including in electricity to run the host CPU. Centralized transcoding on dedicated hardware makes sense. - Jared Except perhaps for the (current discussion) small rural ISP. The bandwidth scaling equations out in Ruralistan have never been the same as in large metros. You see this in wireless delivered performance as well. Netflix is probably not the straw that broke the camel's back, but it's The Thing Du Jour which one can point at and criticize, so it 's becoming a focal point. Sure, but that's nothing more than the latest version of I gambled on oversubscription as a business model, and lost. As you point out, and has been pointed out previously by several other posters, this is how the Internet works. Some new thing is always going to come along which uses more bandwidth than previous things, and if that new thing gets popular ... In Brett's case he made the point explicitly that it's not even a matter of his rural customers not being able to get service if his prices increase to cover his actual costs; it's a situation where if he raises prices he will lose his customers to his competition. (Which in all likelihood have prices for the rural customers which are in some manner subsidized by other customers.) So yeah, Survival of the Fittest sucks if you're not the fittest, but that's life sometimes. Doug
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote: On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet. You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were on the internet? An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: To Be On the Internet March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 How about Vicarious Access: No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 14July2014Monday, at 9:52, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote: On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet. You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were on the internet? An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: To Be On the Internet March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 How about Vicarious Access: No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* Therein lies the fallacy of the “air-gap” … sometimes 3meters is not wide enough. /bill
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b) pay them equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher costs per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than receiving nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop updated technology that makes streaming more efficient. Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without caching is by far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering fat content to the consumer. I noted most of the discussion seems to point to Internet bandwidth as a cost factor to ISPs, but I wonder what's the impact of Netflix on access network costs ? They might be harder to measure or directly correlate to streaming usage, but for non-wired networks (which is usually the case in rural networks), this impact sounds more harmful to me than uplink costs. Rubens
RE: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Let's just dispel this, internet bandwidth is not a very significant cost for access networks when compared to moving the data internally and maintaining the last mile access. That being said, incremental usage can drive huge capex, almost always in the very expensive last mile. Most of our cost (as a cable provider) on a per-bit basis is between the head-end and the customer, or between the head-end and the regional pop. The main driver here should be obvious, the bigger the pipe on the same route, the cheaper the bits...A cable carrying 300 kbit/sec costs just as much to maintain and install as a cable carrying 300 gbit/sec on the outside plant side of the equation, and that is where the real cost is. John -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:07 AM To: Nanog Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b) pay them equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher costs per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than receiving nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop updated technology that makes streaming more efficient. Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without caching is by far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering fat content to the consumer. I noted most of the discussion seems to point to Internet bandwidth as a cost factor to ISPs, but I wonder what's the impact of Netflix on access network costs ? They might be harder to measure or directly correlate to streaming usage, but for non-wired networks (which is usually the case in rural networks), this impact sounds more harmful to me than uplink costs. Rubens
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Benson, The difference, and its a large one, is that the large operators have no interest in building in the less dense rural (and sometimes suburban) areas. The smaller operators are often the only provider in the area and unlike a bookstore if someone wants broadband in an area they can't drive to a larger town and bring a bagful home the way we can with books. There are a few potential paths forward that I can see and I'm sure there are more that others can identify: 1) Various governmental funding sources like CAF subsidize the market enough for smaller operators to continue to get by. 2) CAF and other funding make rural territories profitable enough that the large operators buy many/most/all of the smaller providers. 3) Prices for rural customers increase to cover the increased costs. 4) Content providers contribute $some_amount to help cover the costs of connectivity. 5) Operators in rural markets fall further behind making rural markets even less attractive and that contributes the trend of rural to urban migration here in the US. Of course a combination of these is also possible or local governments could get more involved, but these look to be the most likely in no real order. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big guys. Thoughts? Cheers, -Benson On Jul 13, 2014 3:59 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Just an observation: I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks. It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin fighting. In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, could people please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!! Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?! And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the images please be generated locally and downloaded off hours (whatever off hours meant on the internet) or even shipped via tape etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!! Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb. Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know. And games OMG games. I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in physics which is where that was coming from.) And the public getting on the internet (ahem.) On and on. Now it's video streaming. And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this Internet of Things idea, too many people conversing with their toaster-ovens. My comment has always been the same: There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into bread lines. I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how to bake more bread. This too shall pass. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
From: Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big guys. Thoughts? But if the marginal cost of carrying netflix and similar approached zero this wouldn't be a problem. A big problem with being a usenet server was that it could take 50GB of disk space, easy. How to monetize all that disk space in a day when a GB disk cost $500? A surcharge for clients using usenet? Charge downstream customers you fed? New protocols with less store and more aggressive forward? Evolve to sites which specialize in usenet service rather than expecting every mom pop ISP to provide it as a base measure of service? But today I can get key fobs with 64GB for about $50, and of course 4TB disks for under $200. So the apparent urgency of the content business models is directly related to the costs, which tend to drop over time, usually to the point that it becomes non-urgent (or argue that they can't.) More importantly it tends to go through the same basic patterns: Identify who is benefiting. Argue about what benefiting means. Try to assess relative benefits and costs proportionately. Improve technology step-wise to mitigate and possibly reallocate costs assessing any effects on benefits. Follow the technology curve. Etc. Video streaming seems challenging. But so did 50GB of disk once. I suppose if I were to make a concrete suggestion it would be to try to develop hypothetical cost curves, thresholds (at what cost does it not matter even to the more vulnerable?), estimate dates (hah!), and not put more energy into the problem than such an analysis merits. In particular soas not to develop potentially disruptive new models whose implementation and cost of implementation one might soon enough come to regret. Also remembering that extrapolations tend to be foiled by discrete events. For example, Apr 1, 2017: Comcast/TW buys Netflix... On Jul 13, 2014 3:59 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Just an observation: I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks. It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin fighting. In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, could people please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!! Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?! And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the images please be generated locally and downloaded off hours (whatever off hours meant on the internet) or even shipped via tape etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!! Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb. Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know. And games OMG games. I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in physics which is where that was coming from.) And the public getting on the internet (ahem.) On and on. Now it's video streaming. And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this Internet of Things idea, too many people conversing with their toaster-ovens. My comment has always been the same: There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into bread lines. I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how to bake more bread. This too shall pass. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* p dir=3DltrThanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it#39;s = realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue -= this
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: [...] I already have a hard-on for VZN. :-) I think Jay just won the TMI award for this thread... ;P Matt
Comcast DNS Team
Good Afternoon, Could a member of the Comcast DNS team contact me off-list at archi...@comcast.netmailto:archi...@comcast.net? Thank you, Aaron [cid:image002.jpg@01CF9F67.2CC35380] Aaron Childs Associate Director [cid:image003.png@01CF5889.646358F0] Infrastructure Services Information Technology Services Wilson Hall - 577 Western Ave. Westfield MA 01086 P 413.572.5527 F 413.572.5615 aa...@westfield.ma.edumailto:aa...@westfield.ma.edu
Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer
Mark, BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is targeting RR which is not in the forwarding path, so there¹s no forwarding towards any destination filtered out from RIB. Using it selectively on a forwarding node is error prone and in case of incorrect configuration would result in blackholing. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu Organization: SEACOM Reply-To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:33:12 PM Anurag Bhatia wrote: In this scenario what is best practice for giving full table to downstream? In our case, we have three types of edge routers; Juniper MX480 + Cisco ASR1006, and the Cisco ME3600X. For the MX480 and ASR1006 have no problems supporting a full table. So customers peer natively. The ME3600X is a small switch, that supports only up to 24,000 IPv4 and 5,000 IPv6 FIB entries. However, Cisco have a feature called BGP Selective Download: http://tinyurl.com/nodnmct Using BGP-SD, we can send a full BGP table from our route reflectors to our ME3600X switches, without worrying about them entering the FIB, i.e., they are held only in memory. The beauty - you can advertise these routes to customers natively, without clunky eBGP Multi-Hop sessions running rampant. Of course, with BGP-SD, you still need a 0/0 + ::/0 route in the FIB for traffic to flow from your customers upstream, but that is fine as it's only two entries :-). If your system supports a BGP-SD-type implementation, I'd recommend it, provided you have sufficient control plane memory. Cheers, Mark.
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Benson, The difference, and its a large one, is that the large operators have no interest in building in the less dense rural (and sometimes suburban) areas. The smaller operators are often the only provider in the area and unlike a bookstore if someone wants broadband in an area they can't drive to a larger town and bring a bagful home the way we can with books. But if that's the case, then Brett has no issue. As Benson noted: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big guys. Brett's concerns seem to center around his ability to be cost-competitive with the big guys in his area...which implies there *are* big guys in his area to have to compete with. If the big guys don't want to build into the rural area, and aren't competing with Brett, he can charge accordingly (the scenario Scott outlines). If the big guys *have* built into the area where Brett is serving users, then we're outside of Scott's model, and into Benson's model, and it may well be a case of the local bookstore not being able to compete with Amazon anymore. While having no competitors in an area might suck for the *consumers*, I don't think it's the situation that Brett is facing; I think he's talking about trying to compete with large carriers who have indeed built out into his area, and have a large economy of scale on their side. I could be wrong, though; I often am. Thanks! Matt
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/14/2014 9:09 AM, David Farber wrote: Three years On Jul 12, 2014, at 9:28 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: ... Also, although CSNet started with NSF money, it was required to become self-funded within 5 years. Hmmm... I believe the point of confusion is the difference between the initial contract, versus the strategic requirement to become self-funded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSNET CSNET was funded by the National Science Foundation for an initial three-year period from 1981 to 1984. and A stipulation for the award of the contract was that the network needed to become self-sufficient by 1986. The wikipedia article confirms this distinction by citing the NSF itself: http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/internet/modest.htm By 1986, the network was to be self-supporting. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/14/2014 8:31 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: Oh, *sure* Dave; write your own RFC just so you can refer to it in an argument, 19 years later... Well, after all, one does need to /earn/ the title of visionary... However, you've provided nice closure to some childhood trauma: I've no math skills, while my brother who is 5 years my senior has an excess of them. When I was quite young -- maybe 4? -- he taught me to participate in a parlor trick where I would demonstrate astonishing arithmetic skills. He would feed me a series of numbers and operations (4 + 3 * 2 - 2 +...) and I'd say the final answer and it was always correct. The gimmick was that by pre-arrangement he said he would say the final answer early on, in a particular place in the sequence, and then he'd make the computation wander around until it came back to that number. Friends and family were amazed. Except our mother, who knew I wasn't that bright. I guess now you've discerned that she was wrong. On 7/14/2014 9:52 AM, Barry Shein wrote: How about Vicarious Access: No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet. Might be time to revise the RFC... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
As far as the LARIATs of this world go, wouldn't the optimum CDN solution be satellite multicast caching? -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/13/2014 4:00 PM, Brett Glass wrote: At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, My customers do not want me to creatively find ways to extract additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. Oh come on. [An aside: I really preferred when Brett kept his ranting over on another list I read, but I do find it amusing that after all these decades of running an ISP, he's finally shown up on the list where people who build ISPs talk] We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain maximum duty cycle. That is very nice of you. Or perhaps you're actually operating a *business* and that is exactly the service you are selling to your customers. Not unlike what many other ISPs have been doing for decades now. You have arranged to bring bits from the Internet to your customers and vice versa. And you know that most customers won't use all of the bits they possibly could all of the time, so the bandwidth you've provisioned from your transit provider and/or peers is substantially less than what you sell to the customers, but you're careful to point out to the customers that there's no guarantee they can get all of their locally-provisioned bandwidth all of the time, and you try as you might to ensure that all of your customers get some of the bandwidth most of the time. And of course you charge them for that service. You can't charge them for what they'd really like, because what they'd really like costs you too much to provide... and (more importantly) you're not the only game in town, and so if you charged too much, you'd have no customers at all. Funny how business works... you need to charge more than it costs you, in order to make a profit, but not so much that nobody buys at all. I seem to remember this from a basic economics class. So now we've got the baseline of what's important to you... charging a low enough price that you continue to have customers, but high enough that you don't starve. Like all small business owners before you. The guy at the local hardware store probably shares your pain. But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific third party service such as Netflix. No, of course you can't. That's the great thing about the Internet... services and software comes and goes, and yet all the complications stay the same. A few years ago, the thing that made your life harder was Skype. Your very own customers went and installed software on their computers that actually sent and received data over their Internet connections that you were selling them. The gall they must have had to do such a thing! Suddenly, your infrastructure was being asked to carry real-time audio and video streams, when before the design assumption was that such a thing wouldn't happen. And it was being asked to carry bits to and from your customers that were indexing the location of other Skype users that weren't even your customers! Oh no! But, as has happened before and would happen again, your customers simply expected to be able to install software that uses the Internet. Sure, it made your life harder, just like when YouTube showed up and your customers started to get emails from their friends about cat videos. Videos! Huge amounts of bandwidth wasted on cats, when a simple text posting to Usenet about one's cat would have sufficed. Not that you didn't try... you tried updating your policies, adding things like we prohibit the use of the Slingbox on residential connections when another new way to use one's Internet connection showed up in the marketplace... But it wasn't entirely successful... So you complained, and complained, and complained about how your customer's usage of the Internet had changed... not because it was going to stop YouTube, or Skype, or Napster, or anything that had come before or would come in the future... but because it made the world more aware of the plight of a small business owner who wanted to not charge his customers more than the competition was charging, but who also had high costs because of where and how he chose to do business. That's right. Nobody forced you to establish your ISP in Laramie, or has prevented you from raising funding and trenching fiber right to your doorstep. In fact, as you have repeatedly pointed out, large ISPs have economies of scale , including networks that are conveniently close to major peering points, and enough
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/14/14 10:06 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b) pay them equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher costs per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than receiving nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop updated technology that makes streaming more efficient. Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without caching is by far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering fat content to the consumer. I noted most of the discussion seems to point to Internet bandwidth as a cost factor to ISPs, but I wonder what's the impact of Netflix on access network costs ? They might be harder to measure or directly correlate to streaming usage, but for non-wired networks (which is usually the case in rural networks), this impact sounds more harmful to me than uplink costs. if your customer buys 20, needs 6 and gets 4 I guess that's problem, if the customer buys 2 and needs 4 that's a different one... It's politically inconvenient to assign blame to third parties for the provisioned capacity of the last mile network. Rubens signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single uplink count here, yes. You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers are other networks, including larger business networks that are or might become multi-homed. In short, if the plurality of your customers have an ASN. And for a chunk of time, we looked like a transit network for traffic that passed through us heading for Internet2, if you were looking at us from the Internet2 side, and damned few eyeballs unless you call a few dozen HPC clusters eyeballs. But if you were looking at us from our Cogent upstream, we looked like an eyeball network because we didn't provide those downstreams any transit in Cogent's direction, so all that was visible was our tens of thousands of eyeballs that were all looking at stuff that wasn't on Internet2. (And yes, things got interesting a few times in our routing swamp when we didn't keep straight which thing went where, and we leaked a route or two and looked like eyeballs to Internet2, or transit to Cogent...) So as I said, it depends on where you were looking at us from. pgpdxinRvbPNC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison. NOT CACHING with Netflix - up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a month from a major hub with a big commit? - a 10gbps port to transit provider CACHING with Netflix - up to 500w of power and 4u rack space - in a commercial DC that's a few hundred a month, most telecoms have rack space in their own office - a 10gbps port to server - the same - transit commitment in off peak hours - most telecoms have plenty of this to spare That's a pretty massive saving. I still do not understand how Netflix should pay for customers using your network. Its like charging another carrier to receive a phone call from your network, because you want to have cheaper plans. The risk is, the policy Brett suggests, will misrepresent ISP pricing. This is a huge issue. Brett? How do you think you can compete with big providers when they're subsidized by Netflix? Bare in mind they'll have much more power in negotiating with Netflix than you. Your customers will be paying for Netflix, subsidizing your competitor! Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an ISP in New Zealand called slingshot that popped up on my radar. Transit in NZ appears to be expensive as hell ($20+/Mbps for bulk buys from competitive PoPs) yet this ISP, Slingshot, encourages customers to use their VPN to access Netflix. This is notable to our conversation because when any ISPs are proposing whats essentially a Netflix tax another one, who pays 20x or more for transit and cannot cache Netflix are encouraging use of Netflix. Why? Publicity. Brett, you might like a look at that because they charge $10 more than the cheapest competitor, but the proxy service they provide (which probably costs them pennies) keeps customers flowing like water for its ease of use. In a age where internet is becoming a commodity these are the types of services that can keep you afloat. Alternatively, use this debacle as advertising! I've seen many cable users complain about Netflix being very slow, could advertising that you don't throttle Netflix give you a competitive edge in cable territory??
RE: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
The choice for ISPs at larger scale is peering or caching, peering is cheaper than caching as power is not as cheap as you think as well as the requirement to have two of everything for failover if you do caches (ie can't have my transits or more likely my backhaul blow up if the caches go away). I also typically don't want to give up the opportunity cost on the power in our main pops as it is not what the power costs, but rather what you could sell it for that matters in most of our core sites. We don't cache in head-ends as we still would need the backhaul anyway if the caches fail so we can't really reduce the backhaul requirement much. We have some middle tier sites in the cable network, but the benefit of throwing caches at those locations has never really been there since they are not staffed the same way etc.I think a lot of big networks have this issue. John -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of mcfbbqroast . Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 1:09 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison. NOT CACHING with Netflix - up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a month from a major hub with a big commit? - a 10gbps port to transit provider CACHING with Netflix - up to 500w of power and 4u rack space - in a commercial DC that's a few hundred a month, most telecoms have rack space in their own office - a 10gbps port to server - the same - transit commitment in off peak hours - most telecoms have plenty of this to spare That's a pretty massive saving. I still do not understand how Netflix should pay for customers using your network. Its like charging another carrier to receive a phone call from your network, because you want to have cheaper plans. The risk is, the policy Brett suggests, will misrepresent ISP pricing. This is a huge issue. Brett? How do you think you can compete with big providers when they're subsidized by Netflix? Bare in mind they'll have much more power in negotiating with Netflix than you. Your customers will be paying for Netflix, subsidizing your competitor! Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an ISP in New Zealand called slingshot that popped up on my radar. Transit in NZ appears to be expensive as hell ($20+/Mbps for bulk buys from competitive PoPs) yet this ISP, Slingshot, encourages customers to use their VPN to access Netflix. This is notable to our conversation because when any ISPs are proposing whats essentially a Netflix tax another one, who pays 20x or more for transit and cannot cache Netflix are encouraging use of Netflix. Why? Publicity. Brett, you might like a look at that because they charge $10 more than the cheapest competitor, but the proxy service they provide (which probably costs them pennies) keeps customers flowing like water for its ease of use. In a age where internet is becoming a commodity these are the types of services that can keep you afloat. Alternatively, use this debacle as advertising! I've seen many cable users complain about Netflix being very slow, could advertising that you don't throttle Netflix give you a competitive edge in cable territory??
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 2014-07-10 21:40, Randy Bush wrote: Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same paragraph is just...dizzying. if we filtered or otherwise prevented conjecturbation, jumping to conclusions based on misuse of tools, hyperbole, misinformation, fud, and downright lying, how would we know the list exploder was working? Randy, The ipv6 vs NAT discussions of course!
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- Original Message - From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single uplink count here, yes. You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers are other networks, including larger business networks that are or might become multi-homed. In short, if the plurality of your customers have an ASN. And for a chunk of time, we looked like a transit network for traffic that passed through us heading for Internet2, if you were looking at us from the Internet2 side, and damned few eyeballs unless you call a few dozen HPC clusters eyeballs. But if you were looking at us from our Cogent upstream, we looked like an eyeball network because we didn't provide those downstreams any transit in Cogent's direction, so all that was visible was our tens of thousands of eyeballs that were all looking at stuff that wasn't on Internet2. So as I said, it depends on where you were looking at us from. What you *look like from outside* depends on whence you look, yes... But that doesn't affect what you *are*; my definition was based on the view of the mythical superobserver *above* flatland, who can see everything cause he's at right angles to it; the majority of ASs, I would venture to speculate, veer sharply in one direction or the other -- even if that's because a transit operator acquired an eyeball operator, or vice versa, and those parts are in separate ASen. Do we have disagreement on that point? I've mostly been above the forest, rather than in the trees... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:34 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: everything cause he's at right angles to it; the majority of ASs, I would venture to speculate, veer sharply in one direction or the other -- even if that's because a transit operator acquired an eyeball operator, or vice versa, and those parts are in separate ASen. Yeah, at that point we looked like a dessert topping *and* a floor wax.. :) (We've since moved most of the transit games into a more separate AS, so the distinction is easier to see from outside) pgpjNn5NuA2Ch.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Brett's concerns seem to center around his ability to be cost-competitive with the big guys in his area...which implies there *are* big guys in his area to have to compete with. He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit is unclear. There are bandwidth reseller / BGP / interconnect specialist ISPs out there who live to fix these things, if there's anything like a viable customer base... George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
Net Neutrality...
On Jul 13, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Randy Bush wrote: ahhh. so not government regulated == wild west lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet, usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation. yeah John, where are you (John and I sat a few doors from each other at one point, way back) Oh joy, a network neutrality discussion, and it's taking place 1) on nanog, 2) over the weekend, and 3) when I no longer run an ISP or a data-center/content-source... It took some doing, but I was able to quell my urge to respond immediately (being at the beach with family likely helped enormously... :-) So the right answer to this entire mess would have been to provide competitive cost- based access to the underlying facilities (copper, coax, fiber) including associated colocation and power services, and consider that justified given the long regulated history that made the establishment of the cable plants and rights-of-way possible. (Note - we actually had this equal-facility-access framework in the US at one point, but it was later fixed by a determination that effective competition could be provided among service providers of different technologies (e.g. FTTH, cable, dish) and that nothing more was needed. The result was the vertical integration that we often see today - from access loop through Internet service and up to and including content in many cases. Attempting to now address this problem (of equitable access to Internet users) via regulation of interconnection arrangements may not be very productive in the end; it is a palliative measure that has potential for great complexity - similar to having every gated community in the country file paperwork describing their programs for handling of local delivery and pizza companies, and/or any fees for priority access along the community roads, and all of this despite most of the community's insistence that third-party vehicles should just be allowed to pass through. There generally should be a point of interconnection which allows for settlement- free handoff of traffic to local customers; the current industry-based peering model has done a reasonable job of finding such accommodations when they can be achieved, even if it does so with only nominal outside visibility. I understand the desire for more consistency and public visibility into such industry agreements, but would have greatly preferred efforts in that area as a prerequisite step (which would allow for actual data and analysis to be introduced in the discussion) before any further measures such as per-agreement regulatory review or formalization of tiered priority mechanisms... Alas, that sort of structured approach is not how government generally works, so we're going to go from standstill to the complete solution in one large leap and have to hope it works out for the best. /John Disclaimer: My views alone - I would appreciate not having my packets molested if you should happen to disagree with them... ;-)
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Brett's concerns seem to center around his ability to be cost-competitive with the big guys in his area...which implies there *are* big guys in his area to have to compete with. He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit is unclear. There are bandwidth reseller / BGP / interconnect specialist ISPs out there who live to fix these things, if there's anything like a viable customer base... Ah--right, that was the genesis of my rant about if you don't have an ASN, you don't exist. He'd first have to get an ASN before he could engage in getting a different upstream transit, or connect to different exchange points, etc. As much as people insisted you can be an ISP without an AS number, I will note that it's much, MUCH harder, to the point where the ARIN registration fees for the AS number would quickly be recouped by the cost savings of being able to shop for more competitive connectivity options. Matt George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
RE: Net Neutrality...
Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of doing the right thing. For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following. 1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation. Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed. I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said Ok, Ok, what do you really need here and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC. I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone. Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to get on board would be huge. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Re: Net Neutrality...
Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. Miles Fidelman Naslund, Steve wrote: Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of doing the right thing. For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following. 1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation. Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed. I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said Ok, Ok, what do you really need here and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC. I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone. Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to get on board would be huge. Steven Naslund Chicago IL -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Net Neutrality...
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. There's the problem. In my neck of the woods, there is one and only one provider. They have a guaranteed monopoly for the next few decades. They got a huge grant to put in FTTH from the government and they still have pricing from the last decade. An 8/1 connection is $120/mo and require you to get dialtone (they say it's FCC mandated) to the tune of an additional $20/mo (that's with no long distance and every possible feature stripped). (Side-note: when the power fails during the winter, they turn off all internet access after 5 minutes so they can save battery power for the phones--which travel the exact same fiber path as the interntet). I'm not a huge fan of Comcast's recent actions, but if they rolled into the area with the same offer they have in town (100/25 for ~$75/mo), I would switch faster than you could spell monopoly. There's plenty of fiber lying within 1/4 mile from my house (runs between Seattle and Portland), but none of the companies are interested in being a local ISP, or leasing to a non-business, and I couldn't afford to start my own, let alone trenching my own fiber to other residents who are also fed up. It doesn't matter to me what the big players do because as a consumer, I still don't have a choice. So while I find my local provider's practices utterly despicable, I can't exactly speak with my wallet unless I quit being an IT guy, cancel my internet, and start raising goats or something. -A
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Matt, While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all 6 of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband subs. I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do with Internet access. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Brett's concerns seem to center around his ability to be cost-competitive with the big guys in his area...which implies there *are* big guys in his area to have to compete with. He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit is unclear. There are bandwidth reseller / BGP / interconnect specialist ISPs out there who live to fix these things, if there's anything like a viable customer base... Ah--right, that was the genesis of my rant about if you don't have an ASN, you don't exist. He'd first have to get an ASN before he could engage in getting a different upstream transit, or connect to different exchange points, etc. As much as people insisted you can be an ISP without an AS number, I will note that it's much, MUCH harder, to the point where the ARIN registration fees for the AS number would quickly be recouped by the cost savings of being able to shop for more competitive connectivity options. Matt George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 2014-07-14 09:48, Dave Temkin wrote: We inquired about space power in the location that Brett mentions (Level3) as well as the Coresite location. We were told there was no power to be had in either building, hence we went for the third option. We have transport options available back to both should we need it. That said, that shows what a messed up market Denver is - there is definitely pent up demand but if Netflix can't even get space and power there's clearly none left. For years we were promised that Coresite was building a giant new campus, but they seem to have all but abandoned it. Dave, Thank you for clarifying what seemed, at a distance, to be a rather strange decision. That assessment also explains away some routing oddities I've observed over the years. Jima
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 02:42 PM 7/14/2014, George Herbert wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Brett's concerns seem to center around his ability to be cost-competitive with the big guys in his area...which implies there *are* big guys in his area to have to compete with. He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit is unclear. Why don't you simply ask me? There have been a huge number of incorrect, mostly speculative assertions made about my business in this thread, but I simply don't have time to correct all of them (I have a business to run and customers to help). --Brett Glass
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com It's now called Any2 Denver: Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street address for it anywhere among their literature. :( It's in a closet in the basement of a parking garage. I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere? - Matt -- If Alan Turing was alive today, the homosexuality would be OK but he'd be in trouble for codebreaking. -- Martin Bacon
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 14, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote: I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere? It's noodling around in the disused lavatory with Moaning Myrtle. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Matt, While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all 6 of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband subs. And as long as they're happy with their single upstream connectivity picture, more power to them. But the minute they're less than happy with their connectivity option, it would sure be nice to have their own ASN and their own IP space, so that going to a different upstream provider would be possible. Heck, even just having it as a *bargaining point* would be useful. By not having it, they're essentially locking the slave collar around their own neck, and handing the leash to their upstream, along with their wallet. As a freedom-of-choice loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone would subject their business to that level of slavery. But I do acknowledge your point, that for some category of people, they are happy as clams with that arrangement. I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do with Internet access. Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does having an ASN make you an ISP. Thanks! Matt
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does having an ASN make you an ISP. I think here is where you are wrong. There are many people out there that have cobbled together ISPs and have appliances that will load balance or do failover with multiple DSL or hybrid DSL/Cable/T1 solutions. I do understand the line you have drawn, but some of these people compete against the largest companies in the world and win business because of their uptime and support. I wish they wouldn’t be doing “CGN” or CGN-lite type things but it happens and they don’t need an ASN to be competitive. And having an ASN would drive their costs up significantly. $500 in fees from ARIN represents a large number of subscribers profit. - Jared
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Hi Brett, Why don't you simply ask me? I can only speak for myself, but I thought that's kind of what I and others were doing in replying to your messages, stating either support or counterpoints, and asking questions (?). With this being a list and your (as of recently) being a member of the list, my assumption (and I'm betting others') is that it's a conversation and in our replies, you may be inclined to respond or you may not. There have been a huge number of incorrect, mostly speculative assertions made about my business in this thread, but I simply don't have time to correct all of them (I have a business to run and customers to help). And that's fine; you're under zero obligation to anyone on the list. That said: finding radio silence, chances are the conversation will carry on and we're left to guessing/theorizing/extrapolating. When I said I really don't understand the line of reasoning... I wasn't being flippant. I just know how things look from my own experience; I don't know the full details of your business and so I honestly don't know what led to your take on the topic. Your experience dealing with Netflix has obviously been more negative than mine, and I don't fully get why that is. The prevailing trend seems to be that Netflix generally doesn't have trouble getting content to access providers' door steps, with several options for providers on how to receive that content that covers different traffic levels. In the same way as you don't owe them any special treatment, though, I don't see how they owe you (or any of us) special treatment either. But, like I said: I don't know the details of your business or the specifics of how this plays out for you, but I am eager to hear it. More information is helpful, and if we only ever hear from people with the same view/experience, we're not very likely to get the whole picture... -- Hugo On Mon 2014-Jul-14 17:45:56 -0600, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 02:42 PM 7/14/2014, George Herbert wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Brett's concerns seem to center around his ability to be cost-competitive with the big guys in his area...which implies there *are* big guys in his area to have to compete with. He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit is unclear. Why don't you simply ask me? There have been a huge number of incorrect, mostly speculative assertions made about my business in this thread, but I simply don't have time to correct all of them (I have a business to run and customers to help). --Brett Glass signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 07:47 PM 7/14/2014, Matthew Petach wrote: And as long as they're happy with their single upstream connectivity picture, more power to them. You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an ASN. That's not correct. ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a much higher percentage of its revenues than a large one for IPs, ASNs, etc. Clever small ISPs find ways to work around that, and it makes them more competitive. --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them anyways cuz u have no ASN? On Monday, July 14, 2014, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 07:47 PM 7/14/2014, Matthew Petach wrote: And as long as they're happy with their single upstream connectivity picture, more power to them. You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an ASN. That's not correct. ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a much higher percentage of its revenues than a large one for IPs, ASNs, etc. Clever small ISPs find ways to work around that, and it makes them more competitive. --Brett Glass -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 14, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: ... You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an ASN. That's not correct. ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a much higher percentage of its revenues than a large one for IPs, ASNs, etc. Interesting use of the word discriminatory, as it is usually used in the context of having different rates or fees for different categories of people or things... Used as you have, nearly everything (including equipment makers, conference fees, and the local coffee shop) all have discriminatory fees. Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, but do recognize that such uniform fees have a disproportionate impact on smaller service providers. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Netflix's arrangement isn't peeering. (They call it that, misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't require money to change hands.) ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be peering. It's merely establishing a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static route would work just fine. --Brett Glass At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them anyways cuz u have no ASN?
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
So we are splitting hairs with what peering means? And I am sure Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful. Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you seriously if you don't have an ASN? -Mike On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Netflix's arrangement isn't peeering. (They call it that, misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't require money to change hands.) ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be peering. It's merely establishing a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static route would work just fine. --Brett Glass At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them anyways cuz u have no ASN? -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:54:52PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: [...] And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. I think I want this on a T-shirt.
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote: Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger ones. And a much larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being in the club to start with. but do recognize that such uniform fees have a disproportionate impact on smaller service providers. If they were uniform, they would still have a bit of a disproportionate impact, but less so. If they were on a sliding scale, it might be fair. Remember: Our average profit is $5 per customer per month, and our customer base is limited by population. If I were in this business just for the business, I'd find a more profitable business, but I CARE about my community and accept a smaller return on my investment to help folks get connected. (This doesn't mean that I'm a charity, but it does mean I'll never get the profits or the ROI of a large, urban provider.) It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the Internet community at large. --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/15/2014 午後 12:51, Brett Glass wrote: But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static route would work just fine. --Brett Glass At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them anyways cuz u have no ASN? Why would any content network (realistically) be interested in manually maintaining your prefixes in their routing table? BGP exists for a reason, you really should be using it. The fact that you don't have an ASN means that automatically creating said static routes based on data from some IRRd is likely more trouble than it's likely to be worth as well.
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static route would work just fine. Anybody else feel a vendor t-shirt in the works? Who needs BGP to peer, a static route would work just fine! Time to get back into the Hot Tub Time Machine and back on point. *hangs head in shame*
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Mike: An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a large expense that would not produce any additional value for my customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which I absolutely do not want to do. Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. As for peering: the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it; content providers at the edge do not. Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions. --Brett Glass At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: So we are splitting hairs with what peering means? And I am sure Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful. Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, Â I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you seriously if you don't have an ASN? -Mike
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Thanks, I am so happy I now understand what an ASN and BGP are. I had no clue! Fuck it, we don't need BGP anywhere. Everyone go static! Back to the binge drinking now as I started when I first started reading this thread... -Mike On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Mike: An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a large expense that would not produce any additional value for my customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which I absolutely do not want to do. Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. As for peering: the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it; content providers at the edge do not. Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions. --Brett Glass At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: So we are splitting hairs with what peering means? And I am sure Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful. Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, Â I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you seriously if you don't have an ASN? -Mike -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. Last comment on the thread. And the truth will set you free! Please have your upstream provider peer with Netflix and all will be right in the world.As a single-homed customer of said ISP, you are subject to their rules. No need for your involvement in this old routing protocol and numbers business, let them do it as it's their business, not yours. I will not respond further and we can let this thread finally die. - charles
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
In message 201407150421.waa26...@mail.lariat.net, Brett Glass writes: Mike: An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a large expense that would not produce any additional value for my customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which I absolutely do not want to do. Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. As for peering: the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it; content providers at the edge do not. Bullshit. Lots of entities peer. Hell, I've peered over 9600 baud leased line slip connections back in 80's. Late 80's but still the 80's. The only requirement for peering is that you want to interconnect. I've also peered over fibre pulled between building on a campus. In all cases both entities bought and dedicated ports on their routers. Routes were exchanged and bits shipped back and forth. An ISP and a content provider can peer. Their common job is to ship bits to the ISP's customers. They are peers on that role. Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions. --Brett Glass At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: So we are splitting hairs with what peering means? And I am sure Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful. Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, Â I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you seriously if you don't have an ASN? -Mike -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Charles: Not trying to seize the last word here, but did want to make one final point. Just because I let each of my upstreams route for me does NOT mean I am single-homed; only that I handle multi-homing differently. There are commercial appliances available that do this, though I happen to have rolled my own so as to save money and obtain greater control. And, that being said, I'm happy to let the thread die because it's sort of an odd tangent. I see no reason why there should be any sort of class distinction between ISPs who undertake the messy business of doing BGP (I have the technical knowledge to do it, but no desire to add more to my plate) and those who choose to outsource that task and focus their efforts on the challenges of serving remote downstream customers. --Brett Glass At 10:30 PM 7/14/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: Last comment on the thread. And the truth will set you free! Please have your upstream provider peer with Netflix and all will be right in the world.As a single-homed customer of said ISP, you are subject to their rules. No need for your involvement in this old routing protocol and numbers business, let them do it as it's their business, not yours. I will not respond further and we can let this thread finally die. - charles
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 15/07/14 10:39, Matt Palmer wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com It's now called Any2 Denver: Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street address for it anywhere among their literature. :( It's in a closet in the basement of a parking garage. I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere? And a DELNI.
