Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990.
not so much. that kink came in later
randy
I'm forced to peer with certain African providers in London
and Amsterdam because they don't want to peer in Africa,
where we are literally are an x-connect away from each
other. And the reasons are not even because either of us is
larger or smaller than the other... it's just legacy
On Sunday, May 18, 2014 11:57:51 AM Randy Bush wrote:
which is amusing given you have massive east coast to
europe fiber capacity.
My point exactly - as an operator, it costs me close to
nothing given all the capacity we have (and can further
light) on this path, but the other guys do not
On May 16, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Blake,
I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items.
1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today.
Not true. Most cell phones have HD cameras. Most CCD video cameras sold in
Traffic Symmetry is a distraction that the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS would like us to
focus on.
The reality is that $ACCESS_PROVIDERS want us to focus on that so that we don’t
see what is really going on which is a battle to deeper (or avoid increasing
peering
capacity with) networks they think they can
On May 16, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Mike,
In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said I
have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10
million anytime I want and the percentage of
Jason,
In your first reply you mention a lot of we're all good, we comply, we
don't do x etc
However you seem to have forgotten to reply to question #1 that Arvinder
asked. (#2 you were able to reply)
http://comcrust.com/ is already four years old it would seem enough time to
get an upgrade in
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Traffic Symmetry is a distraction that the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS would like us
to
focus on.
The reality is that $ACCESS_PROVIDERS want us to focus on that so that we
don’t
see what is really going on which is a battle to
On Friday, May 16, 2014 08:47:53 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
How residential ISPs recoup costs (or simply increase
revenue/profit) is another question entirely. I think
the most insightful comment in this discussion was made
by Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym), when he
states that ISPs have
On Friday, May 16, 2014 08:52:31 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though?
Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not
be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even
10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic
over
On Friday, May 16, 2014 09:11:56 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
But hey, why peer at little or no cost if they
can instead hold out and possibly peer at a negative
cost?
Because they hope that, one day, you'll cave and become a
customer. Isn't that more prestigious :-)?
Mark.
signature.asc
On Friday, May 16, 2014 09:44:55 PM Scott Helms wrote:
I don't think that anyone disputes that when you improve
the upstream you do get an uptick in usage in that
direction. What I take issue with is the notion that
the upstream is anything like downstream even when the
capacity is there.
On 14-05-15 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:
As primarily an eyeball network with a token (8000 quoted) number of transit
customers it does not seem reasonable for them to expect balanced ratios on
peering links.
Pardon my ignorance here, but isn't there a massive difference between
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 09:05:57 PM Joe Greco wrote:
Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what
the next big thing next year will be but I promise that
I won't host it on my network and cause our traffic to
become lopsided.
You mean like almost every other mobile carrier the
What you're missing is that the transit provider is
selling full routes. The access network is selling
paid peering, which is a tiny fraction of the routes.
Considering they charge on a $per/mb basis I don't think its just routes
they are selling. It looks a lot like they are selling bits. From
On 5/15/14, 12:49 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com
arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote:
I have two issues with the comments:
2. You mention that all packets treated equally - no games. Why does
AS7922 assign the speed test different DSCP from regular internet
connection?
I have no idea what you
On , Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 5/15/14, 12:49 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com
arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote:
I have two issues with the comments:
2. You mention that all packets treated equally - no games. Why does
AS7922 assign the speed test different DSCP from regular internet
All the talk about ratios is a red herring… The real issue boils down to this:
1. The access (eyeball) networks don’t want to bear the cost of delivering
what they promised to their customers.
2. This is because when they built their business models, they didn’t
expect their customers
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Vinny Abello vi...@abellohome.net wrote:
I think he's questioning why packets from speedtest.comcast.net have CS1 if
everything is supposedly equal, and what that is used for. A quick Wireshark
shows that to be true right now running to your Plainfield, NJ
On May 16, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
Broadband is too expensive in the US compared to other places
I have seen this repeated so many times that I assume it's true but I have
never seen anything objective as to why. I can tell you if you look at
population
On 5/16/14, 7:56 AM, Vinny Abello vi...@abellohome.net wrote:
I think he's questioning why packets from speedtest.comcast.net have CS1
if everything is supposedly equal, and what that is used for. A quick
Wireshark shows that to be true right now running to your Plainfield, NJ
speedtest site, and
On Friday, May 16, 2014 03:54:33 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
customers. 2. This is because when they built their
business models, they didn’t expect their customers to
use nearly as much of their promised bandwidth as they
are now using. Most of the models were constructed
around the idea that a
Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic here in the US or
internationally. Broadband suffers here for a number of reasons, mainly
topological and population density, in comparison to places like Japan,
parts (but certainly not all) of Europe, and South Korea.
Scott Helms
Vice
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:08:33 PM Scott Helms wrote:
Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic
here in the US or internationally. Broadband suffers
here for a number of reasons, mainly topological and
population density, in comparison to places like Japan,
parts (but
- Original Message -
From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu
While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball
networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social
media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH),
putting even more demand on the network,
Oh yes;
Mark,
Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the
popularity of OTT video.
Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't generate that much
traffic per session.
During peak period, Real-Time Entertainment traffic is by far the most
dominant traffic
Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM:
- Original Message -
From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu
While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball
networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social
media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like
Blake,
None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic
patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly
improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even
if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling
Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive applications. I
don't deny that a 1 Mbps video call is both less common and consumes
less bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. However, if Americans had access
to symmetric connections capable of reliably making HD video calls (they
don't,
Blake,
I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items.
1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today.
2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it
themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to
entry
Scott Helms wrote:
Mark,
Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the
popularity of OTT video.
Until my other half decides to upload a video.
Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits that I can use in whichever
direction happens
to be needed at the moment?
Thanks for the insight Scott. I appreciate the experience and point of
view you're adding to this discussion (not just the responses to me).
While I might be playing the devil's advocate here a bit, I think one
could argue each of the points you've made below.
I do feel that general usage
Michael,
No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of
requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the
reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of
customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Mark,
Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the
popularity of OTT video.
Until my other half decides to upload a video.
Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits
Blake,
You're absolutely correct. The world adapts to the reality that we find
ourselves in via normal market mechanics. The problem with proposing that
connectivity for residential customers should be more symmetrical is that
its expensive, which is why we as operators didn't roll it out that
I'd just like to point out that a lot of people are in fact using their
upstream capability, and the operators always throw a fit and try to cut off
specific applications to force it back into the idle state. For example P2P
things like torrents and most recently the open NTP and DNS servers.
Oh, I'm not proposing symmetrical connectivity at all. I'm just
supporting the argument that in the context of this discussion I think
it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral
carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric when the
overwhelming
Lazlo,
You're correct that some applications are being restricted, but AFAIK in
North America they are all being restricted for quite valid network
management reasons. While back in the day I ran Sendmail and sometimes
qmail on my home connection I was also responsible with my mail server and
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP
to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering
ratios to be symmetric
is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though?
Blake,
I'm not sure what the relationship between what an access network sells has
to do with how their peering is done. I realize that everyone's favorite
target is Comcast right now, but would anyone bat an eye over ATT making
the same requirement since they have much more in the way of
Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP
to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering
ratios to be
All this talk about symmetry and asymmetry is interesting.
Has anyone actually quantified how much congestion is due to buffer bloat which
is, in turn, exacerbated by asymmetric connections?
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
signature.asc
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
ISP
to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:14 PM, James R Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
All this talk about symmetry and asymmetry is interesting.
Has anyone actually quantified how much congestion is due to buffer bloat
which is, in turn, exacerbated by asymmetric connections?
James R.
Matthew,
There is a difference between what should be philosophically and what
happened with Level 3 which is a contractual issue.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
On
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:35:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the
use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media
platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows
that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry?
What we saw with FTTH
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
ISP
to purport
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:45:06 PM Scott Helms wrote:
Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly
asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video.
Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't
generate that much traffic per session.
Our experience showed that there is a
Mark,
I don't think that anyone disputes that when you improve the upstream you
do get an uptick in usage in that direction. What I take issue with is the
notion that the upstream is anything like downstream even when the capacity
is there. Upstream on ADSL is horribad, especially the first
Scott Helms wrote:
Michael,
No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of
requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but
the reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority
of customers don't use the upstream capacity they
Mark Tinka wrote:
One of the use-cases we thought about when deploying an FTTH
backbone was having remote PVR's. So rather than record and
save linear Tv programming on the STB, record and save it in
the network. This could only be done with symmetric
bandwidth.
Isn't this already the
Mike,
In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said
I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10
million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their upstream
in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the
Scott Helms wrote:
Mike,
In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I
said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see
another 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap
their upstream in both of those sample groups for more
I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time
(well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and none
generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link. Most of
the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least 6 mbps upstreams
and
Scott Helms wrote:
I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time
(well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and
none generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link.
Most of the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least
Michael,
I didn't claim Webrtc is vapor, I claim that pervasive video calling is
vapor. Further, even if that prediction is wrong pervasive video calling
isn't enough even if 100% of users adopt it to swing the need for
symmetrical bandwidth. An average Skype/Google Hangout/Apple is less than
On May 16, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
In the US, we just surpassed 1/2 of the population who have that capability,
iirc. They
call them phones nowadays.
Many of them have native IPv6 as well, this also hasn't gotten significant
number of legacy/incumbents to
On May 16, 2014 12:21 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a
Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate…
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate sound bite
- Kevin
215-313-1083
On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
I don’t disagree. However, given the choice between Comcast and broadband
services in NL, Chatanooga, or Seoul, just to name a few, Comcast loses badly.
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 5:15 PM,
Having an actual free market would require having competition. So long as we
have monopoly layer 1 providers being allowed to use that monopoly as leverage
for higher layer service monopolies, (or oligopolies), an actual free market is
virtually impossible.
The result of deregulating the
Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead
of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband), Akamai,
Ookla, etc
What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial transit
business for 15+ years (with over 8000
Unfortunately these build-outs are primarily in subscriber facing
bandwidth and number of headend locations (to add more customers to the
network). These peering point/transit connection issues have been going
on for a long time, evidenced by Level 3 coming out with this post.
Comcast is
There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary with
issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the same
rhetorical quotes continue to be reused
- Kevin
On May 15, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Scott Berkman sc...@sberkman.net wrote:
On May 15, 2014, at 11:50 AM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary
with issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the
same rhetorical quotes continue to be reused
This is a smart group. If if that was true I think every internet site /
service one visits from home would be a negatively impacted. That is not the
case
As I said before, Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of
capacity. Wholesale $$ are very small, highly competitive and
Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers.
Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then you
throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to
trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for the
same reason. I'm going to stop for a while.
- Kevin
On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Nick B
n...@pelagiris.orgmailto:n...@pelagiris.org
On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps fast lane
I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog
has included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no
'fast lane' being constructed, rather just varying degrees of _slow_
To be fair, I have no evidence that Comcast demanded money in advance. As
far as I can tell, Level 3, Cogent and Comcast all agree on the rest
though, Comcast's peering filled up. Both Level 3 and Cogent
offered/requested to upgrade. Then at least Cogent (IIRC?) offered to
upgrade *and pay
What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial
transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber customers).
Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity, and some
of the largest Internet companies as customers.
Peers that are balanced
And the unbalanced peers / transit?
-Blake
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
This is a smart group. If if that was true I think every internet site /
service one visits from home would be a negatively impacted. That is not the
On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
Twisted pair is certantly legacy.
Is there a feeling that coax cable/DOSCIS is also legacy in terms of
current capacity/speeds ? Or is that technology
On May 15, 2014, at 7:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead
of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband),
Akamai, Ookla, etc
I didn’t say they weren’t doing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquitous in this argument.
If the local distribution networks would like to actually build
something fast, then this would be a different story.
Okay, then
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks r...@hack.net wrote:
On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps fast lane
I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog has
included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no 'fast
On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote:
Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers².
Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then
you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
Nick
That is categorically untrue, however
By categorically untrue do you mean FCC's open internet rules allow us
to refuse to upgrade full peers?
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote:
Yes, you've got some of the largest
On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.orgmailto:n...@pelagiris.org
wrote:
By categorically untrue do you mean FCC's open internet rules allow us to
refuse to upgrade full peers?
Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain it
to 1G, for example. What if a
Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a
way to avoid technically throttling. Interestingly enough only Comcast and
Verizon are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an
example others will follow.
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM,
Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 1s of
'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day
the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service
flows, while service flows can have equal priority I doubt most operators
will
Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
And the unbalanced peers / transit?
Surely it is too much to expect a service provider to actually provide
service even if it is not entirely fair and balanced. It's not like,
you know, anyone was paying them to provide a service ...
[...rewind...]
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 1s of
'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day
the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service
flows,
Chris,
You're not reading what I said, nor did I make a statement anything like
one of the silly things you referenced (640k ram etc). Prioritization
isn't that complex and today we handle the maximum amount of complexity
already since everything is the same priority right now.
You're trying
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced you
can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where does it
end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to switch
I said I would step away, but trying to keep some level of emotion out of
this... We all need rational actor behavior in the ecosystem. We need our
policies and agree to live up to those policies between players. Random and
inconsistent behavior does not build a well functioning market and is
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks r...@hack.net wrote:
On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps fast lane
I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog has
included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no
I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your
customers are requesting that they send through you if you cannot
maintain a balanced peer relationship with them. It's shameful that
access networks are attempting to not pay for their leeching of mass
amounts of data in clear
On May 15, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
Twisted pair is certantly legacy.
Is there a feeling that
That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade for Flash on
my Mac.
Owen
On May 15, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
It's a shame the use of 'fast
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
No idea -- I use NoScript and block Flash (as well as other dangerous
annoying embedded content) and it works for me.
- - ferg
On 5/15/2014 11:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade
for
Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain=
it to 1G, for example.
Throttling is also trying to cram 20G of traffic through that same 10G
link.
What if a peer wants to go from a balanced relation=
ship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the
From: Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com
On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquitous in this argument.
If the local distribution networks would like to actually build
something fast, then this would be a different story.
Okay, then call it
AFAIK Comcast wasn't consuming, mass amounts of data from Level 3
(Netflix's transit to them). Are you implying that a retail customer has a
similar expectation (or should) as a tier 1 ISP has for peering? I hope
not, that would be hyperbole verging on the silly. Retail customer
agreement spell
If traffic is unbalanced, what determines who is the payer and who is the
payee? Apparently whoever can hold on to their customers better while
performance is shit.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Chris,
You're not reading what I said, nor did I make a statement anything like
one of the silly things you referenced (640k ram etc). Prioritization isn't
yes I made a joke. (*three of them actually)
that complex and
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced y=
ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where do=
es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
It doesn't strike you as a ridiculous promise to extract from someone?
Hi
That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade for =
Flash on my Mac.
Try
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We
On 5/15/14, 3:05 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what the next big
thing next year will be but I promise that I won't host it on my network
and cause our traffic to become lopsided.
Wow. Is that what you're saying?
Of course not.
JL
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
