Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com
Tue Jul 29 15:11:48 UTC 2014
What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint
path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves
that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side
However I doubt Level3 is going to sit there and lie about their
connection to Verizon being overloaded, and for Verizon to do any kind of
meaningful QOS it would require an effort on the Level3 side of the
connection as well.
On 7/29/14, 8:33 AM, "McElearney, Kevin"
<Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said
>>eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown,
>>that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
>>than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud.
>>I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only.
>Along with paying <$IP_PROVIDER> for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also
>paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service
>(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).
>While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore
>decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated
>application performance issues.
More information about the NANOG