nanog mailing list archives
Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:45:46 -0400
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -0000, "McElearney, Kevin" said:
(w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN).
Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an external challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) McElearney, Kevin (Jul 29)
- Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) Paul WALL (Jul 29)
- Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) William Herrin (Jul 29)
- Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 29)
- Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) McElearney, Kevin (Jul 29)
- Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) Corey Touchet (Jul 29)