Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On May 16, 2014 12:21 PM, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach () netflight com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net> wrote:
> > > in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
> > ISP
> > > to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect
> > peering
> > > ratios to be symmetric
> >
> > is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about
> > offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be
> > 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the
> > traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into
> > some horrific location(s) to access the content in question.
> >
> > Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly
> > germaine to the conversation at hand.
> Traffic asymmetry across peering connections
> was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg,
> if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic
> went asymmetric, the refusals to augment
> capacity kicked in, and congestion became
> a problem.

What lit this powder keg?:

<conspiracy theory>

Netflix bought transit from cogent and expected it to work. C'mon.  This
happens every month on this list and every month people tell others not to
rely on cogent. Right? Netflix is smart, they know cogent is willing to
burn down their network and blow up their customers for 15 minutes of fame
$0.03 a meg.

This makes me think the whole thing is a net neutrality strawman.

They set the stage and all the players played their part.

Now, what will be the result?  I expect some concession from the
comcast/twc deal.  They made a big deal about net neutrality  / netflix /
strawman so they can trump up a "meaningful" concession to allow the
merger.

</conspiracy>

> I've seen the same thing; pretty much every
> rejection is based on ratio issues, even when
> offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the
> home market for the users.
>
> If the refusals hinged on any other clause
> of the peering requirements, you'd be right;
> but at the moment, that's the flag networks
> are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour.
> So, it may be very "1990", but unfortunately
> that seems to be the year many people in
> the industry are mentally stuck in.  :(
>
> Matt