Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
owen at delong.com
Fri Jul 11 16:50:22 UTC 2014
On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote:
> On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who
>> don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years
> While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two months ago:
> As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best.
> Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it.
> I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange.
For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer.
More information about the NANOG