Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>]

Sure.  But you're making too much stew from one oyster; *I* did not 
*assert* that this was their motivation for doing so. 

I simply noted that it's tied into one of the arguments I'd seen for
why they had a problem, and ameliorates it from their POV.

Different thing.

Cheers,
-- jra

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Helms" <khelms () zcorum com>
> To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra () baylink com>
> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:49:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
> Jay,
>
> I really doubt that the guys who designed Verizon's access network had
> anything to do or say about their peering nor do I believe there was a
> cross departmental design meeting to talk about optimal peering to
> work
> with the access technology. The group responsible for peering and
> other
> transit operations and planning probably pre-dated FiOS being at scale
> by
> decades. Asymmetrical networks from telecom operators is and has been
> the
> norm world wide for a very long time. We're only now getting to a
> place
> where that consideration is even being talked about and even now none
> of
> the "common" approaches for access give symmetrical traffic except for
> Ethernet. I'd like to see EPON more common, but the traditional telco
> vendors either don't offer it or its just now becoming available.
>
> Again, I have no doubt that _after the fact_ someone at Verizon said
> that
> this is a good because it helps with the Netflix flap, but drawing
> causality between their prior asymmetrical offering and the way they
> went
> after transit is a mistake IMO.
>
>
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
> --------------------------------
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> --------------------------------
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I am equally certain that some there
> > > > were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a
> > > > better
> > > > position to argue from if we need to against Netflix.
> > >
> > > wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red
> > > part
> > > in the verizon blog?
> > > (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to
> > > verizon/netflix issues)
> >
> > I made the argument, so I'll clarify.
> >
> > One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's
> > problem
> > was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an
> > eyeball
> > network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how
> > their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing
> > they're
> > complaining about now.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
> > --
> > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
> > jra () baylink com
> > Designer The Things I Think RFC
> > 2100
> > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land
> > Rover DII
> > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647
> > 1274

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274