nanog mailing list archives
Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:28:43 -0600
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 01:07:15AM -0500, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Note that Comcast has never said that the Level3/Netflix issue is about users exceeding their allotted bandwidth (currently at about 250GB/month for residential); presumably, were a Comcast user to use 249GB of bandwidth downloading cute pictures of cats, Comcast would have no objection.
I believe they want the cat people to pay too, it's just easier to go after Netflix first. Lets say for a moment that Comcast's overall ratio with its customers is approximately the same as their ratio in the leaked Tata graphs (yes I know that this proves nothing, but lets just assume it for a moment), i.e. 5:1. They then ask that every network who sends them traffic, even their transit providers (in the case of Level 3) be under 2:1. What is the point of insisting on a ratio that is not supported by the traffic their customers actually request? Because it gives them a convenient excuse to demand payment from nearly everyone on the Internet for being out of ratio, and to restrict capacity to those who do not pay. With so many transit ports running hot, and even peering ports running hot as in the recent example where they intentionally turned down Global Crossing capacity (which they claim is settlement free) and CAUSED congestion, the ISP who hosts the cute cat pictures may have little choice but to pay Comcast for access, or risk losing their cute cat hosting business to someone else who is willing to do so. I've also seen Comcast ignore several offers to honor MEDs or accept more-specifics from networks who DO meet their published peering requirements in every way except ratios, so I don't think they're interested in technical solutions a potential transport cost imbalance either. If it was about anything other than trying to extract a toll from content providers, one of these technical solutions would clearly have been better for them then continuing to force the traffic into their congested transit ports, which they not only pay for, but then also do the backhaul for across their own network. BTW, they rejected my very nice comment on their blog asking if they would be willing to share the graphs of their transit provider interfaces (which are NOT peering relationships, and not under NDA) to back up their claims that the published graphs are false, so I'm positive yours isn't going to get through. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Current thread:
- RE: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute, (continued)
- RE: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute George Bonser (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute Lamar Owen (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute Jack Bates (Dec 17)
- RE: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute david raistrick (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute Marshall Eubanks (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Benson Schliesser (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Steve Schultze (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Joly MacFie (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Steve Schultze (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Patrick Giagnocavo (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Richard A Steenbergen (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Joly MacFie (Dec 18)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Dave Temkin (Dec 18)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Owen DeLong (Dec 18)