Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute

[Steve Schultze <sjs () princeton edu>]

On Dec 17, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Benson Schliesser
> <bensons () queuefull net> wrote:
> > I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but my guess:  I suspect the proposal was along the lines of 
> > longest-path / best-exit routing by Level(3).  In other words, if L(3) carries the traffic (most of the way) to the 
> > customer, then Comcast has no complaint--the costs can be more fairly distributed.  The "modest investment" is 
> > probably in tools to evaluate traffic and routing metrics, to make this work.  This isn't really *new* to the 
> > peering community, but it isn't normal either.
>
> That is a reasonable guess, but Level3's FCC filing yesterday spells
> out with certainty that Level3 did offer to "cold potato" traffic onto
> Comcast (it does not mention the technical means e.g. MED honoring,
> CDN smarts, or otherwise) and that Comcast refused.
> [...]

Comcast's latest:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064677