Muni Fiber and Politics

Jason Iannone jason.iannone at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 21:25:49 UTC 2014


You didn't misunderstand me.  But that's not the only point I was
making.  Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it
doesn't have interconnections with.  Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1
peering agreement.  Cogent sends more than that and as such is in
breach of contract.  It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept
penalties.  So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's
Cogent's.  They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix,
with the service they purchased.

Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the
internet's traffic.  That leads to special considerations for Netflix
as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts.  Anyone
promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> ----- 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?
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> 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 mailing list