Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
pauldotwall at gmail.com
Tue Jul 29 18:20:01 UTC 2014
The devil is in the details. Ken Florance
paints a different picture in his blog, for example.
As a manager at Comcast, can you refer the people on this list to any
ISPs who do not have a history of congestion into your network? This
question comes up about once a month, absent any good solutions, so
insight would be appreciated.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:25 PM, McElearney, Kevin
<Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, "Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu>
>>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