Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Tue Jul 29 16:45:46 UTC 2014


On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -0000, "McElearney, Kevin" said:

> (w/ a level of quality).  <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering
> your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even
> bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience.  If
> eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy
> objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a
> direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and
> some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN).

Very true.  But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where
eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an external
challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks.  It's particularly
galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they
engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140729/d683fbb6/attachment.pgp>


More information about the NANOG mailing list