Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
ikiris at gmail.com
Thu May 15 18:28:57 UTC 2014
I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your
customers are requesting that they send through you if you cannot
maintain a balanced peer relationship with them. It's shameful that
access networks are attempting to not pay for their leeching of mass
amounts of data in clear violation of standard expectations for
balanced peering agreements.
Oh... you meant something else?
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Livingood, Jason
<Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, "Nick B" <nick at pelagiris.org<mailto:nick at pelagiris.org>> wrote:
> By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us to refuse to upgrade full peers"?
> Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain it to 1G, for example. What if a peer wants to go from a balanced relationship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the relationship? Should we just unquestionably toss out our published policy – which is consistent with other networks – and ignore expectations for other peers?
More information about the NANOG