On Jul 22, 2014, at 3:52 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > If there is congestion at a peering point, isn't it their responsibility to > try and upgrade their side of the connection so that it's not congested any > more?
Not unless they've got a business reason to do so. > otherwise, term "Internet" becomes meaningless and we go back to the days of > AOL and Compuserv where you get connected to that companies network, and if > you're lucky a little bandwidth to the Internet Oh please. Hyperbolic much? "OH NO I CAN'T STREAM HI-DEFINITION MOVIES, ON DEMAND, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, FOR A MINUSCULE FLAT RATE!! THE INTERNET IS NOW EFFECTIVELY A BALKANIZED 9600 BAUD WORLD!!". > If this wasn't Verizon crying about Netflix, but was podunk ISP in outer > mongolia claiming that your server was flooding their network would you still > say that you needed to pay that ISP to upgrade their network? I would say that *IF* I was getting revenue from that ISP's clients, and if that revenue was critical to my survival (which - for Netflix, protip: it is), I'd seriously consider it, yes. This is a classic "Tragedy of the commons" scenario. There's a shared resource (the L3/VZN IX), and Netflix has realized they can consume all of it and because we all hate megacorps, especially telco megacorps, they can paint Verizon as the bad guy for not giving them more of that resource to consume, and everyone will rally around them like cheerleaders. D
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
