Similar but much smaller scale issue that I'm having trying to deliver our content to access networks - small amount of traffic, heavily skewed outbound from our AS but massive amounts of players on these access networks - yet we're forced to pay said access networks to deliver our mutual customers for an optimal experience.
So much double dipping. On Thursday, July 10, 2014, Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Miles Fidelman < > mfidel...@meetinghouse.net <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Jimmy Hess wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman > >> <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >>> Randy Bush wrote: > >>> > >> [snip] > >> > >>> At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most > >>> content > >>> providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... > >>> > >> Netflix own website indicates otherwise. > >> https://www.netflix.com/openconnect > >> > >> "ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. > >> ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet > >> exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free > >> storage appliances in or near their network." > >> > >> > >> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who > > don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years > > http://www.lariat.net/) > > > > -------- > > > > > > At 02:42 PM 7/10/2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > > Netflix's only fault is being popular. > >> > > > > Alas, as an ISP who cares about his customers, I must say that this is > not > > at all the case. > > > > Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then > > refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. > > > I'm sorry. You cannot take that sentence... > > > > It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front > > doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are > more > > than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first > > questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you > stream > > Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free > > > ...together with this sentence, without hitting a WTF > moment. > > He rants about Netflix generating huge amounts of traffic > and refusing to allow ISPs to cache it; and then goes on to > grumble that Netflix is trying to force them to host caching > boxes. Does he love caching, or hate caching? I really > can't tell. Netflix is offering to provide you the cache boxes > *for FREE* so that you can cache the data in your network; > isn't that exactly what he wanted, in his first sentence? > Why is it that two sentences later, free Netflix cache boxes > are suddenly an evil that must be avoided, no matter how > much Netflix may try to force them on you? > > I'm sorry. I think someone forgot to take their coherency > meds before writing that paragraph. > > If you like caching, you should be happy when someone > offers to give you caching boxes for FREE. If you don't > like caching, you shouldn't bitch about inefficient it is to > have traffic that isn't being cached. > > Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the > same paragraph is just...dizzying. > > Matt > -- *Trent Farrell* *Riot Games* *IP Network Engineer* E: tfarr...@riotgames.com | IE: +353 83 446 6809 | US: +1 424 285 9825 Summoner name: Foro