Muni Fiber and Politics

Jay Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Mon Jul 21 21:31:30 UTC 2014


So you're actually saying that it's *Cogent's* fault for not taking
into account that Netflix was going to be horribly asymmetric, in taking
them on as a client?  I'm fine with that, but what's their solution?

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com>
> To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com>
> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:25:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
> 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

-- 
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