So you're actually saying that it's *Cogent's* fault for not taking into account that Netflix was going to be horribly asymmetric, in taking them on as a client? I'm fine with that, but what's their solution?
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iann...@gmail.com> > To: "Jay Ashworth" <j...@baylink.com> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:25:49 PM > Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics > You didn't misunderstand me. But that's not the only point I was > making. Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it > doesn't have interconnections with. Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1 > peering agreement. Cogent sends more than that and as such is in > breach of contract. It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept > penalties. So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's > Cogent's. They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix, > with the service they purchased. > > Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the > internet's traffic. That leads to special considerations for Netflix > as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts. Anyone > promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight. > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iann...@gmail.com> > > > >> Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network > >> (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as > >> anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In > >> Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and > >> L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering > >> agreements. > >> Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing > >> their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a > >> surprise > >> to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes > >> into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously > >> hard > >> nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the > >> fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers > >> that > >> almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's > >> number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into > >> the > >> contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone > >> to > >> ask for free stuff. > > > > I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if > > you > > are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow > > Netflix's > > *fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of > > flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*. > > > > Did I misunderstand you? > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com > > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274