Muni Fiber and Politics
jra at baylink.com
Mon Jul 21 20:28:14 UTC 2014
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com>
> Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network
> (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as
> anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In
> Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and
> L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements.
> Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing
> their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise
> to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes
> into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard
> nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the
> fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that
> almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's
> number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the
> contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to
> ask for free stuff.
I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you
are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's
*fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of
flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*.
Did I misunderstand you?
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at 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
More information about the NANOG