Netflix To Cogent To World

Phil Rosenthal pr at isprime.com
Wed Jul 23 17:09:05 UTC 2014


With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:

Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?

-P

On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net> wrote:

> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.
> 
> I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner...
> 
> $0.02,
> -a
> 
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
> 
>> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
>> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
>> other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
>> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
>> peering is possible.
>> 
>> Thank You
>> Bob Evans
>> CTO
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
>>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
>>>> *already*,
>>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
>>> 
>>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
>>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
>>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
>>> 
>>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
>>> 
>>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
>>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
>>> 
>>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
>>> 
>>> brandon
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list