Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Tue Nov 30 04:55:08 UTC 2010

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:22:34PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> see craig's report from nanog47:
>> <http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Monday/Labovitz_ObserveReport_N47_Mon.pdf>
>>
>> not for a time has Comcast been solely an 'eye-ball' network... or so
>> they think.
>
> I think you are misreading the data.

s/you are/Craig is/

I was just passing along a study presented at a nanog meeting about
this kind of topic... I really do like to know next to nothing about
peering.

> I have no idea in Comcast's case specifically, or in any recent
> case as my skin isn't in the game right now.  However I am quite
> sure in the past I have delt with networks who wanted 2:1 on peering,
> but where I was nearly positive their customer base was 3:1 or 4:1.
> Basically the ratio became an excuse to depeer anyone they didn't
> like, it was all a sham.

sure, there are more variables (I gather) than just bits in/out...
like 'but my customers complain more if you are further
away/slower/more-lossy' etc. None of those factors are in peering
agreements I would bet, though clearly ratios are, so that stick is
used to whack the other-guy over the head.

> But I come back to my fundamental beef with cable and DSL providers,
> when you're selling 50/5 (10:1 ratio), 25/5 (5:1 ratio), 12/2 (6:1
> ratio) services, you can't expect to maintain a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio
> with your peers.

web traffic (as a measure) seems to be ~10:1 when I look at my
interface at home (vz-consumer-type), without packet-loss and over a
decent sample of time. As with all of the 'peering disputes' over the
last few years, it'll be a fun ride to watch from the outside :)

-Chris