nanog mailing list archives
Re: Netflix To Cogent To World
From: Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:43:42 -0700
...damn; hit Adam in the replies but missed the list...:
With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach
Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers? Netflix switching transit providers seems like a bad idea at this point. Comcast: "See?! Now what if we had spent all this time and money to augment our capacity to Cogent/Level3 to handle the inbound Netflix traffic? Now we have to do a bunch of work to upgrade/migrate infrastructure over to $NEWTRANSIT just because Netflix felt like it?!" I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument, but most of this war is about PR anyway... -- Hugo Hugo Slabbert cell: 604.617.3133 email: hugo.slabbert () slabnet com "If kindness doesn't work, try more kindness." Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Adam Rothschild <asr () latency net> wrote:
Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic. (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.) On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal <pr () isprime com> wrote:With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reachComcast’s and Verizon’s customers?-P On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr () latency net> wrote:I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora ofcommercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not.I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as apeering partner...$0.02, -a On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob () FiberInternetCenter com>wrote:Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer baseandother peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery ifdirectpeering is possible. Thank You Bob Evans CTOIf I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1],givenCogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outboundtraffic?Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so withtheirprevious transits experience why would they continue to buy frompussies?So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why wouldtheynot take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. brandon
Current thread:
- Netflix To Cogent To World Jay Ashworth (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Brandon Butterworth (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Bob Evans (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Adam Rothschild (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Phil Rosenthal (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Adam Rothschild (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Hugo Slabbert (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Phil Rosenthal (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Livingood, Jason (Jul 24)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Adam Rothschild (Jul 24)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Bob Evans (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Blake Hudson (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Brandon Butterworth (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Matthew Petach (Jul 23)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Mark Tinka (Jul 30)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Owen DeLong (Jul 30)
- Re: Netflix To Cogent To World Mark Tinka (Jul 30)