nanog mailing list archives
RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
From: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund () medline com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:16:17 +0000
In common ISP language, peering is a connection between equals that is mutually beneficial so no money usually changes hands, peering connections are usually AS to AS without the ability to transit through to other AS (or at least some kind of policy that prevents you from using your peer for full transit. Transit is paid for bandwidth that "transits" through an AS to the Internet at large. I can use a paid for transit link to get to the entire Internet (hopefully). I agree that it appears that Netflix should be mostly an access or transit customer rather than a peering partner, however since high bandwidth to Netflix will make the ISPs customers happy, it is probably beneficial to come to some kind of agreement that helps you get the dedicated Netflix connection running. This is kind of the arrangement that exists with Akamai, where it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. I host their server which makes my customer happy, make Akamai's customer happy, and helps lower my costs by allowing me to minimize transit traffic. I don’t see why Netflix would be treated any different. If carriers don’t like the way Netflix servers work, then don’t put them in your network and deal with the bandwidth issues. It is a technical tradeoff whichever way you decide to go. Transit is paid for bandwidth that "transits" through an AS to the Internet at large. I have the right to send anything to anywhere on a transit circuit from say Comcast. Over a peering circuit, I should only be sending traffic bound for a Comcast customer or downstream provider. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Current thread:
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix, (continued)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Paul WALL (Jul 21)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Owen DeLong (Jul 17)
- RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Naslund, Steve (Jul 15)
- Message not available
- RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Brett Glass (Jul 15)
- RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Naslund, Steve (Jul 15)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Rubens Kuhl (Jul 15)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix joel jaeggli (Jul 18)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Paul S. (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Charles Gucker (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Christopher Morrow (Jul 14)
- RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Naslund, Steve (Jul 15)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Dave Bell (Jul 15)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix John Curran (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Brett Glass (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Matt Palmer (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Brett Glass (Jul 15)
- RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Naslund, Steve (Jul 15)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix John Curran (Jul 15)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Matthew Kaufman (Jul 15)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Owen DeLong (Jul 17)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Owen DeLong (Jul 17)