Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com>]

...damn; hit Adam in the replies but missed the list...:

> With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
>
> Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach
Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?

Netflix switching transit providers seems like a bad idea at this point.

Comcast: "See?! Now what if we had spent all this time and money to augment
our capacity to Cogent/Level3 to handle the inbound Netflix traffic? Now we
have to do a bunch of work to upgrade/migrate infrastructure over to
$NEWTRANSIT just because Netflix felt like it?!"

I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument, but most of this war is
about PR anyway...

--
Hugo

Hugo Slabbert

cell: 604.617.3133
email: hugo.slabbert () slabnet com

"If kindness doesn't work, try more kindness." Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Adam Rothschild <asr () latency net> wrote:

> Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure
> networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and
> China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to
> scale up traffic.
>
> (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports,
> unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.)
>
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal <pr () isprime com> wrote:
>
> > With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
> >
> > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach
> Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
> > -P
> >
> > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr () latency net> wrote:
> >
> > > I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of
> commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at
> scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.
> > > I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a
> peering partner...
> > > $0.02,
> > > -a
> > >
> > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob () FiberInternetCenter com>
> wrote:
> > > > Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
> > > > peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base
> and
> > > > other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
> > > > works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if
> direct
> > > > peering is possible.
> > > >
> > > > Thank You
> > > > Bob Evans
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1],
> given
> > > > > > Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
> > > > > > *already*,
> > > > > > even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound
> traffic?
> > > > > Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
> > > > > asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with
> their
> > > > > previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from
> pussies?
> > > > > > So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
> > > > >
> > > > > Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would
> they
> > > > > not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
> > > > >
> > > > > brandon