On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Josh Smift <[email protected]> wrote: > 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".
I think the tone used was exactly the tone I was striving for, and I'm not ashamed of it. That's exactly how I perceive the folks who have fallen victim to this cultural hatred for successful businesses. And that's all I'm going to say further on that point, as it's (as noted earlier) a meta side-point, and not the discussion... > 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? Because it's simple - and a time-honored network-management technique - to minimally impact some traffic so that the other traffic can get through. Verizon can make the determination "oh, that's a streaming video protocol that will adapt to a throttled connection handily" and throttle it back so that other less robust protocols make it through unscathed. 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/
