Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On 10/16/21 15:44, Masataka Ohta wrote: What? I will use my network for what I want my network to do for me. There are no international rules about why a network must be built. Provided that I am clear to those whom I want to connect to my network, I can do what I want with it and not be a bad actor. Unless they directly reach their end users, yes, of course. So by your logic, a bank's internal network used to drive its ATM machines is not neutral because one cannot use that network for global IP Transit? The fundamental problem of networking is the last mile problem that access costs alot more than backbone. Well, yes and no. While it is true that one of the biggest problems of the Internet is the last mile, it is vital to not be forced into the mistake of classification. For some operators, the "last mile" is the biggest cost. For other networks, the "backbone" is the biggest cost. You can't tell me that US$700 million being spent to build a submarine cable around a continent is something to scoff at. For me, I don't want to hold myself back by classifying "access", "backbone", "metro", e.t.c. Your business model will determine what is costly to you, and what isn't. As such, long distance carriers may peer with access providers only when they are neutral or pay some of there revenue share to access providers. Again, you are trying to keep the old Internet (and the classic telephone company model) alive in 2021. That is not how operators work anymore. There are networks that have neither a "backbone" nor an "access network" that do very well, and don't cause anyone else pain, because they are clear in what their model is. With your definition, as CDN providers with their own backbone are not "transit", they can not request access providers (and, ultimately, end users) peering without paying some as compensation for access network cost. Otherwise, CDN providers with their own backbone are free riders ignoring access costs. Okay, so by your logic, "access providers" should pay CDN's for peering, because the CDN's have spent millions building submarine cables and data centres around the world to bring their service to the access providers. After all, why give the access providers a free ride either? In case it's not clear, that last paragraph was sarcastic. It's 2021 - long distance, access, backbone, metro, e.t.c. Those are boxes that don't exist anymore. Let's not refuse the advancement of the model because we can't find a way to make it fit in our old box. Mark.
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
søn. 17. okt. 2021 11.16 skrev Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>: > Jay Hennigan wrote: > > >> Access/retail ISPs have no problem by peering with neutral > >> backbone providers. > > > > Neutral backbone providers don't peer with access/retail ISPs. They > > sell transit to them. > > FYI, that is called paid peering. > Paid peering is not the same product as IP Transit. In general a packet never traverse two peering links because that would mean the middle man is not getting paid to move the traffic. Paid peering with a backbone provider will get you routes from their paying customers but not from their peers. The same as you would have from a settlement free peering. > >> CDN provided backbone only reduces costs of other backbone > >> providers without reducing costs of access/retail ISPs. > > > > Access/retail ISPs that peer with CDNs eliminate the cost of paying > > for transit for the content delivered by the CDN. That's what the > > initials CDN stand for. > > But, it does not mean both parties of the peer are equally > benefited. As such peering may be paid one, though it > may not be the current practice. > > Given the observed profitability of CDN providers, CDN > providers are, seemingly, more benefited (because they > are not neutral), in which case, CDN providers should > pay to access/retail ISPs. > > Masataka Ohta > I do not want Netflix to pay me. I get paid by my customers, some of which also happens to be Netflix customers. If Netflix had to pay me, they would need to get that money from the same people who are already paying me directly. What is the point of that? Let me tell you the point. Large ISP can exploit their domination of the marked to double dip, which means they want to be paid twice. That happens to be not neutral and is a way to make the customer pay a hidden fee. For smaller ISPs it works the other way around. An evil CDN could attempt to charge us, the small ISP. I am happy that is not happening. Regards Baldur
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
- On Oct 17, 2021, at 4:50 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: Hi, > Matthew Petach wrote: >> One of the key aspects to both CDN providers and transit >> providers is they tend to be multi-national organizations with >> infrastructure in multiple countries on multiple continents. > > Your theory that multi-national entities can not be > targets of anti-trust agencies of individual countries > and can enjoy world wide oligopoly is totally against > the reality. At face value, your statement is correct. In context, it is unrealistic. Government anti-trust intervention is nothing less than the (a) government interfering in private business. In most civilized countries, that requires a strong legal basis as the government is essentially infringing on private property which is protected in most Constitutions. Therefore, anti-trust intervention is only considered in markets where there are a relatively small amount of competitors and this lack of competition harms the consumer, or when one or more dominant parties use their position to force smaller companies into unreasonable compliance with their wishes. The CDN market has multiple competitors, and the barrier to entry the market is relatively low as you don't have any last-mile issues or difficult-to-get government license requirements. And let's not even begin to talk about anti-trust for content providers; on just my Roku I have Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Discovery+, FandangoNow (although they moved into something else I think), NatGeo+, Sling TV, Nickelodeon, and a bunch more that I can't even remember. Plenty of competition there. Thanks, Sabri
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
* mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) [Sun 17 Oct 2021, 11:17 CEST]: Jay Hennigan wrote: Neutral backbone providers don't peer with access/retail ISPs. They sell transit to them. FYI, that is called paid peering. Can you please please please stop posting nonsense? -- Niels.
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
Matthew Petach wrote: I'd like to take a moment to point out the other problem with this sentence, which is "antitrust agencies". One of the key aspects to both CDN providers and transit providers is they tend to be multi-national organizations with infrastructure in multiple countries on multiple continents. Your theory that multi-national entities can not be targets of anti-trust agencies of individual countries and can enjoy world wide oligopoly is totally against the reality. Masataka Ohta
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
Jay Hennigan wrote: Access/retail ISPs have no problem by peering with neutral backbone providers. Neutral backbone providers don't peer with access/retail ISPs. They sell transit to them. FYI, that is called paid peering. CDN provided backbone only reduces costs of other backbone providers without reducing costs of access/retail ISPs. Access/retail ISPs that peer with CDNs eliminate the cost of paying for transit for the content delivered by the CDN. That's what the initials CDN stand for. But, it does not mean both parties of the peer are equally benefited. As such peering may be paid one, though it may not be the current practice. Given the observed profitability of CDN providers, CDN providers are, seemingly, more benefited (because they are not neutral), in which case, CDN providers should pay to access/retail ISPs. Masataka Ohta
