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

McElearney, Kevin Kevin_McElearney at
Tue Jul 29 17:25:47 UTC 2014

On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, "Valdis.Kletnieks at" <Valdis.Kletnieks at>

>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
>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.

There is a great analysis by Dr Clark (MIT) and CAIDA which shows while
there are some challenged paths and relationships between providers, this
is the exception vs the rule.  Using the “exceptions" are business

Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns)

	- Kevin

More information about the NANOG mailing list