On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Josh Smift wrote:
JBS> This is needlessly snarky. You don't need to imply that the people JBS> who disagree with you are Gollum, or have other various irrational JBS> hatreds and fears -- just disagree with them. (Is my two cents anyway.)DB> No, I think it's a key point to the debate actually. DB> DB> I think if this weren't a "giant-ass evil megacorp", a telco megacorp DB> no less who we societally ingrained to hate ("We don't care, we don't DB> have to, we're the phone company" predates this debate by 40 years or DB> so), it would be much harder for Netflix to paint themselves as the DB> victims, as opposed to the ones who are flooding the shared pipe and DB> refusing to pay their "fair share" of the burden. Sure, but I'm just talking about tone here. "I think we're siding with Netflix rather than Verizon because of a cultural hatred of megacorps" is very different in tone from "oooh, the nasty wasty megacorps, you just can't even consider that they might not be the bad guys here, you narrow-minded idiot". DB> Verizon *is* peering with L3 in a friendly way, they're simply saying DB> "man, one of your downstream customers is consuming a crapton of DB> bandwidth and we're throttling them so the rest of the traffic from DB> you isn't impacted. Why is that Verizon's problem? If one of L3's customer's is saturating L3's network (or L3's uplinks to other networks", why isn't that something for L3 to deal with?
In this case, L3 would like to deal with it, but it requires that Verizon let them plug in more ports to the Verizon router. At that point it becomes a Verizon holdup.
David Lang _______________________________________________ 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/
