Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Scott Helms khelms at zcorum.com
Thu May 15 19:00:31 UTC 2014


AFAIK Comcast wasn't consuming, "mass amounts of data" from Level 3
(Netflix's transit to them).  Are you implying that a retail customer has a
similar expectation (or should) as a tier 1 ISP has for peering?  I hope
not, that would be hyperbole verging on the silly.  Retail customer
agreement spell out, in every example I've seen, realistic terms and
expectations for service and those are very different from peering
arrangements.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
> -Blake
>
> 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?
> >
> > Jason
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list