Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
> On Oct 18, 2021, at 14:48 , Jay Hennigan wrote: > > On 10/18/21 07:02, Josh Luthman wrote: > >>Netflix, as an example, has even been willing to bear most of the cost >>with peering or bringing servers to ISPs to reduce the ISP's costs and >>improve the ISP customer's experience. > > Netflix doesn't do those things because it cares about the ISP's costs and > the ISP customers' experience. > > Netflix does these things because Netflix cares about Netflix's costs and > Netflix's customers' experience. Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that it does lower the ISP’s costs and improve the ISP customers’ experience. >>It's about time Netflix played >>chicken with one of these ISPs and stopped offering service (or >>offered >>limited service) to the ISPs that try to extort them and other content >>providers: > > Then Netflix would risk losing those customers, especially if the ISP in > question is a cable company or offers its own video streaming services. Vs. an ISP that is causing the problem or trying to run a protection racket against content providers, I think it wouldn’t be hard for the content provider to supply appropriate messaging inserted at the front end of playback to explain the situation to their mutual customers. Instead of the typical FBI notice, imagine the movie starting with an ad that explains how the ISP is trying to increase consumer costs by forcing Netflix to pass along additional fees paid to the ISP to deliver content the customer has already paid said same ISP to deliver. Somehow, I don’t see the ISP doing well against such a PR onslaught. > Also, by peering and bringing servers to ISPs, Netflix improves its > customers' experience and reduces Netflix's costs because they no longer need > to pay a transit provider to deliver content. Where the ISP in question isn’t trying to force them to pay transit costs within said eyeball network, sure. But in SK’s case, it looks like they’re trying to force Netflix to pay to reach their eyeballs, even though the eyeballs in question are already paying them to deliver Netflix (and other) content. >>Sorry, your service provider does not believe in net >>neutrality and has imposed limitations on your Netflix experience. > > They actually did pretty much exactly that with Verizon back in 2014. > > https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/netflix-takes-aim-at-verizon-over-slow-data-speeds/ It appears to have worked out fairly well for them, too. Owen
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 1:47 PM Matthew Petach wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 1:17 PM William Herrin wrote: >> Since peering customers can only reach transit customers, it follows >> that one of the customers in the equation is a fully-paid transit >> customer. That fully paid customer's service is degraded or denied >> unless the peering customer also pays. Hence the conflict of interest. > > Customer A is full transit paying customer. > in case 2, Customer B is a paid peering customer. > > Can you explain what it is I'm missing here? ^_^; The part where customer A is paying for a connection to "the Internet" at some data rate, which includes the network run by customer B. REGARDLESS of whether B pays the same service provider. If the service rendered to A is changed by B's payment (or lack), that's a conflict of interest. To remove the conflict of interest, you either have to fiddle the definition of what customer A is buying, turning it into something that would not be obvious to an ordinary person or you have or you have to allow B to engage in settlement free peering if they want to. Or, counterintuitively, pay your own transit provider enough to handle any capacity A and B together care to consume. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
On 10/18/21 07:02, Josh Luthman wrote: Netflix, as an example, has even been willing to bear most of the cost with peering or bringing servers to ISPs to reduce the ISP's costs and improve the ISP customer's experience. Netflix doesn't do those things because it cares about the ISP's costs and the ISP customers' experience. Netflix does these things because Netflix cares about Netflix's costs and Netflix's customers' experience. It's about time Netflix played chicken with one of these ISPs and stopped offering service (or offered limited service) to the ISPs that try to extort them and other content providers: Then Netflix would risk losing those customers, especially if the ISP in question is a cable company or offers its own video streaming services. Also, by peering and bringing servers to ISPs, Netflix improves its customers' experience and reduces Netflix's costs because they no longer need to pay a transit provider to deliver content. Sorry, your service provider does not believe in net neutrality and has imposed limitations on your Netflix experience. They actually did pretty much exactly that with Verizon back in 2014. https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/netflix-takes-aim-at-verizon-over-slow-data-speeds/ -- Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On 10/18/21 1:51 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: I know that there are a lot of risks with hamfisted gubbermint regulations. But even when StarLink turns the sky into perpetual daylight and we get another provider, there are going to still be painfully few choices, and too often the response to $EVIL is not "oh great, more customers for us!" but "oh great, let's do that too!". That's the point where MBAs take over from engineering to squeeze every last penny out of the customer. And that usually happens when a company gets large. So what's the counter? I mean, MSO's already pull that kind of shitty behavior with their "fees" cloaked as taxes. Maybe a better argument is that this is all theoretical since to my knowledge it's not being done on any large scale, so let's not fix theoretical problems. This is obviously complicated and one of the complications is QoS in the last mile. DOCSIS has a lot of QoS machinery so that MSO's could get CBR like flows for voice back in the day. I'm not sure whether this ever got deployed because as is often the case, brute force and ignorance (ie, make the wire faster) wins, mooting the need. Is there even a constructive use of QoS in the last mile these days that isn't niche? Maybe gaming? Would any sizable set of customers buy it if it were offered? It's been a few years since I've worked for a residential service provider, but to the best of my memory, congestion was rarely found in the last mile. That's what I figured. I remember talking to some Sprint architect types around the same time when I told them all of their insistence on AAL2 was useless because voice was going to be drop in the bucket. They looked at me as if I was completely insane. Mike
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
- On Oct 18, 2021, at 12:40 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: > On 10/18/21 12:22 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: >> I totally agree. 100%. Now we just have to agree on the regulation that >> we're talking about. >> >> My idea of regulation in this context is to get rid of the monopoly/duopoly >> so that users actually do have a way out and can vote with their feet. From >> that perspective, the NBN model isn't that bad (not trying to start an NBN >> flamewar here). > I know that there are a lot of risks with hamfisted gubbermint > regulations. But even when StarLink turns the sky into perpetual > daylight and we get another provider, there are going to still be > painfully few choices, and too often the response to $EVIL is not "oh > great, more customers for us!" but "oh great, let's do that too!". That's the point where MBAs take over from engineering to squeeze every last penny out of the customer. And that usually happens when a company gets large. > Witness airlines and the race to the bottom with various fees -- and > that's in a field where there is plenty of competition. For the most part: yes. But, that's also where the success of Southwest comes from. They generally don't take part in that kind of bovine manure. > This is obviously complicated and one of the complications is QoS in the > last mile. DOCSIS has a lot of QoS machinery so that MSO's could get CBR > like flows for voice back in the day. I'm not sure whether this ever got > deployed because as is often the case, brute force and ignorance (ie, > make the wire faster) wins, mooting the need. Is there even a > constructive use of QoS in the last mile these days that isn't niche? > Maybe gaming? Would any sizable set of customers buy it if it were offered? It's been a few years since I've worked for a residential service provider, but to the best of my memory, congestion was rarely found in the last mile. > If there isn't, a regulation that just says "don't cut deals to > prioritize one traffic source at the expense of others" seems pretty > reasonable, and probably reflects the status quo anyway. But again, now you are interfering in how I operate my network. Let's say I have two options: 1. Accept one million from Netflix to prioritize their traffic and set my residential internet pricing to $50; or 2. Be subjected to government regulations that prohibit me from accepting said funds and set my residential internet pricing to $100 to cover costs; Isn't it up to me to make that decision? The government should not need to have any say in this matter. And note my careful wording, because in the current market, they do need to have a say. My point is: the market should be open enough that if a sub disagrees with their ISP's technical choices, they should be able to switch. It's government regulation that makes that extremely difficult, if not impossible. But, I don't want to pollute the list any further and I've made my points so I shall grant you the last word publically :) Thanks, Sabri
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 1:17 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthew Petach > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM William Herrin wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl > >> wrote: > >> > Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product > called IP Transit and other expectations if you call the product paid > peering. The latter is not providing the whole internet and is cheaper. > >> > >> The problem with paid peering is that it creates a conflict of > >> interest which corruptly influences the company's behavior. Two > >> customers are paying you in full for a service but if one elects not > >> to pay you will also deny or degrade the service to the other one who > >> has, in fact, paid you. > > > > > > The phrase "paying you in full" is the stumbling point with your > > claim. > > > > As Baldur noted, "paid peer [...] is not providing the whole > > internet and is cheaper." > > Since peering customers can only reach transit customers, it follows > that one of the customers in the equation is a fully-paid transit > customer. That fully paid customer's service is degraded or denied > unless the peering customer also pays. Hence the conflict of interest. > I'm sorry. :( I'm feeling particularly dense this morning, so I'm going to work through the two cases very slowly to make sure I understand. Customer A is full transit paying customer. In case 1, Customer B is a full transit paying customer also. Customer A announces their prefixes to ISP; as a transit customer, ISP promises to announce those prefixes to everyone they have a BGP relationship with, including customer B. Likewise, ISP provides a full BGP table, including default if requested, to Customer A, ensuring Customer A can reach Customer B, and Customer B can reach Customer A. in case 2, Customer B is a paid peering customer. Customer A announces their prefixes to ISP; as a transit customer, the ISP promises to announce those prefixes to everyone they have a BGP relationship with, including Customer B. Likewise, ISP provides a full BGP table, including default if requested, to Customer A, ensuring Customer A can reach Customer B, and Customer B can reach Customer A. I'm not seeing how Customer B's status as paid peer versus transit customer changes either the set of prefixes Customer A sees, or the spread of Customer A's prefixes to the rest of the Internet. In short--the amount Customer B is paying or not paying, does not change the view of prefixes that Customer A sees, nor does it change the propagation scope of Customer A's prefixes. As neither of those two things change, I'm completely failing to see how Customer A's service is being degraded or denied based on Customer B's choices. Can you explain what it is I'm missing here? ^_^; Regards, > Bill Herrin > Thanks! Matt
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthew Petach wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM William Herrin wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl >> wrote: >> > Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product called IP >> > Transit and other expectations if you call the product paid peering. The >> > latter is not providing the whole internet and is cheaper. >> >> The problem with paid peering is that it creates a conflict of >> interest which corruptly influences the company's behavior. Two >> customers are paying you in full for a service but if one elects not >> to pay you will also deny or degrade the service to the other one who >> has, in fact, paid you. > > > The phrase "paying you in full" is the stumbling point with your > claim. > > As Baldur noted, "paid peer [...] is not providing the whole > internet and is cheaper." Since peering customers can only reach transit customers, it follows that one of the customers in the equation is a fully-paid transit customer. That fully paid customer's service is degraded or denied unless the peering customer also pays. Hence the conflict of interest. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On 10/18/21 12:22 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: - On Oct 18, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Hi, On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote: The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control a network owned and paid for by someone else. Your version of "unreasonable" and my version of "unreasonable" are on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is unreasonable for you to tell me how to run configure my routers, and you think it is unreasonable for me to configure my routers that I pay for the way that I want to. Yeahbut, for the last mile that network is often a monopoly or maybe a duopoly if you're lucky. If streaming provider 1 pays ISP to give priority over streaming provider 2 -- maybe by severely rate limiting provider 2 -- the people who get screwed are end users without a way to vote with their feet. That sort of monopolistic behavior is bad for end users. Mostly I want ISP's to be dumb bit providers and stay out of shady deals that enrich ISP's at my expense. And if it takes regulation to do that, bring it. I totally agree. 100%. Now we just have to agree on the regulation that we're talking about. My idea of regulation in this context is to get rid of the monopoly/duopoly so that users actually do have a way out and can vote with their feet. From that perspective, the NBN model isn't that bad (not trying to start an NBN flamewar here). But, I would be opposed to regulation that prevents a network operator from going into enable mode. There are more reasons than "government intervention into a privately owned network" / "network neutrality" to want more competition. Lower prices and better service, for example. Have you ever tried calling Comcast/Spectrum? I'd love to get involved (privately, not professionally) in a municipal broadband project where I live. We have 1 fiber duct for the entire town. That got cut last year, and literally everyone was without internet access for many hours. We don't need net neutrality. We need competition. The FCC sucks, and so does the CPUC. I know that there are a lot of risks with hamfisted gubbermint regulations. But even when StarLink turns the sky into perpetual daylight and we get another provider, there are going to still be painfully few choices, and too often the response to $EVIL is not "oh great, more customers for us!" but "oh great, let's do that too!". Witness airlines and the race to the bottom with various fees -- and that's in a field where there is plenty of competition. This is obviously complicated and one of the complications is QoS in the last mile. DOCSIS has a lot of QoS machinery so that MSO's could get CBR like flows for voice back in the day. I'm not sure whether this ever got deployed because as is often the case, brute force and ignorance (ie, make the wire faster) wins, mooting the need. Is there even a constructive use of QoS in the last mile these days that isn't niche? Maybe gaming? Would any sizable set of customers buy it if it were offered? If there isn't, a regulation that just says "don't cut deals to prioritize one traffic source at the expense of others" seems pretty reasonable, and probably reflects the status quo anyway. Mike
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
- On Oct 18, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Hi, > On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote: >> >> The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control >> a network owned and paid for by someone else. >> >> Your version of "unreasonable" and my version of "unreasonable" are on the >> opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is unreasonable for you to tell me >> how to run configure my routers, and you think it is unreasonable for me >> to configure my routers that I pay for the way that I want to. > > Yeahbut, for the last mile that network is often a monopoly or maybe a > duopoly if you're lucky. If streaming provider 1 pays ISP to give > priority over streaming provider 2 -- maybe by severely rate limiting > provider 2 -- the people who get screwed are end users without a way to > vote with their feet. That sort of monopolistic behavior is bad for end > users. Mostly I want ISP's to be dumb bit providers and stay out of > shady deals that enrich ISP's at my expense. And if it takes regulation > to do that, bring it. I totally agree. 100%. Now we just have to agree on the regulation that we're talking about. My idea of regulation in this context is to get rid of the monopoly/duopoly so that users actually do have a way out and can vote with their feet. From that perspective, the NBN model isn't that bad (not trying to start an NBN flamewar here). But, I would be opposed to regulation that prevents a network operator from going into enable mode. There are more reasons than "government intervention into a privately owned network" / "network neutrality" to want more competition. Lower prices and better service, for example. Have you ever tried calling Comcast/Spectrum? I'd love to get involved (privately, not professionally) in a municipal broadband project where I live. We have 1 fiber duct for the entire town. That got cut last year, and literally everyone was without internet access for many hours. We don't need net neutrality. We need competition. The FCC sucks, and so does the CPUC. Thanks, Sabri
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
" to give priority" Assuming priority is given. It's going to be very rare for their to be both only one ISP and no other ISPs able to be motivated to be present. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Michael Thomas" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:51:50 PM Subject: Re: DNS pulling BGP routes? On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote: > > The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control > a network owned and paid for by someone else. > > Your version of "unreasonable" and my version of "unreasonable" are on the > opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is unreasonable for you to tell me > how to run configure my routers, and you think it is unreasonable for me > to configure my routers that I pay for the way that I want to. Yeahbut, for the last mile that network is often a monopoly or maybe a duopoly if you're lucky. If streaming provider 1 pays ISP to give priority over streaming provider 2 -- maybe by severely rate limiting provider 2 -- the people who get screwed are end users without a way to vote with their feet. That sort of monopolistic behavior is bad for end users. Mostly I want ISP's to be dumb bit providers and stay out of shady deals that enrich ISP's at my expense. And if it takes regulation to do that, bring it. Mike
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote: The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control a network owned and paid for by someone else. Your version of "unreasonable" and my version of "unreasonable" are on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is unreasonable for you to tell me how to run configure my routers, and you think it is unreasonable for me to configure my routers that I pay for the way that I want to. Yeahbut, for the last mile that network is often a monopoly or maybe a duopoly if you're lucky. If streaming provider 1 pays ISP to give priority over streaming provider 2 -- maybe by severely rate limiting provider 2 -- the people who get screwed are end users without a way to vote with their feet. That sort of monopolistic behavior is bad for end users. Mostly I want ISP's to be dumb bit providers and stay out of shady deals that enrich ISP's at my expense. And if it takes regulation to do that, bring it. Mike
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product called > IP Transit and other expectations if you call the product paid peering. The > latter is not providing the whole internet and is cheaper. > > The problem with paid peering is that it creates a conflict of > interest which corruptly influences the company's behavior. Two > customers are paying you in full for a service but if one elects not > to pay you will also deny or degrade the service to the other one who > has, in fact, paid you. > The phrase "paying you in full" is the stumbling point with your claim. As Baldur noted, "paid peer [...] is not providing the whole internet and is cheaper." If the two customers are "paying you in full", then they're paying you for transit, and as such, they get a copy of the full tables, regardless of how you learn those routes, whether through a paid relationship or a settlement free relationship. If the two customers are *not* paying full price, but are instead paying the reduced price for "paid peering", then they each recognize that the set of prefixes they are receiving, and the spread of their prefixes in return are inherently limited, *and will change over time as the customer relationships on each side change." Nobody buying "paid peering" expects the list of prefixes sent and received across those sessions to remain constant forever. That would imply no new customers are ever added, and would imply no customers ever leave, which is clearly unreasonable in the real world. If you, as the customer paying for paid peering, see the list of prefixes decreasing over time, when the contract comes up for renewal, you are likely to argue for a lower price, or may decide it's no longer worth it, and decide to not renew the relationship. On the other hand, if you, as the provider, are increasing the number of prefixes being seen across those paid peerings at a substantial rate, when the next renewal cycle comes up, you may decide the price for paid peering should go up, because you're providing more value across those sessions. Each side evaluates the then-present set of prefixes being exchanged when the contract comes up for renewal, to decide if it's still worth it or not. But if you're "paying in full" for IP transit, then the sessions should include as much of the full BGP table as possible, potentially including a default route, and the promise of that session is to make your prefixes as visible to the entire rest of the Internet as possible. (This is, as a small aside, why I don't think Cogent should be allowed to label their product "IP transit" so long as they are willfully refusing to propagate their customer's prefixes to *all* of the rest of the Internet. So long as they are choosing to cherry-pick out certain networks that they will *not* propagate their customers routes to, they are *not* providing true IP transit, and should not label it as such.) > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > Thanks! Matt
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 4:54 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Matthew Petach wrote: > > > I'd like to take a moment to point out the other problem with this > > sentence, which is "antitrust agencies". > > > > One of the key aspects to both CDN providers and transit > > providers is they tend to be multi-national organizations with > > infrastructure in multiple countries on multiple continents. > > Your theory that multi-national entities can not be > targets of anti-trust agencies of individual countries > and can enjoy world wide oligopoly is totally against > the reality. > *facepalm* No, the point I was making wasn't that they can't be the target of antitrust agencies, the point was that there's so many conflicting jurisdictions that consistent enforcement in a coordinated fashion is impossible. We can't even get countries to agree on what a copyright or a trademark means, or even what privacy rights a person should have. I know one content distribution company that was originally thinking of putting a site in country X; however, after taking a closer look at the laws in country X, decided instead to put the site in a nearby country with more favourable laws and to interconnect with the network providers just outside country X, thus putting them outside the reach of those laws. It's really, *really* hard to "regulate" global infrastructure because it crosses over/under/through so many different jurisdictions; if one country decides to put considerably stronger restrictions in place, the reaction by and large is to 'route around the damage' so to speak. The lack of success from Brasil's efforts are a good indication of just how successful per-country regulation of internet providers tends to be: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2175352/brazil-to-drop-requirement-that-internet-firms-store-data-locally.html The GDPR is probably the most successful effort at reining in global internet companies in recent years, and even there, when companies ignore it, the resulting fines are a small slap on the wrist at best, hardly causing them to change their behaviours: https://secureprivacy.ai/blog/gdpr-the-6-biggest-fines-enforced-by-regulators-so-far Even the $5 billion fine Facebook paid to the FTC after the Cambridge Analytica was really only a $106M fine, with an extra $4.9B thrown in to make the personal lawsuit go away: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/21/facebook-paid-billions-extra-to-the-ftc-to-spare-zuckerberg-in-data-suit-shareholders-allege-513456 When companies can afford to throw an extra 50x the money at a regulatory agency to make a problem go away, it's pretty clear that thinking that regulatory agencies are going to have enough teeth to fundamentally change the way of life of those businesses is optimistic at best. Looking at the top 15 antitrust cases in the US, you can see how in many cases, the antitrust action was minimally effective in the long term, as the companies that were split up often ended up rejoining again, years down the line: https://stacker.com/stories/3604/15-companies-us-government-tried-break-monopolies > > Masataka Ohta > Matt
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product called IP > Transit and other expectations if you call the product paid peering. The > latter is not providing the whole internet and is cheaper. The problem with paid peering is that it creates a conflict of interest which corruptly influences the company's behavior. Two customers are paying you in full for a service but if one elects not to pay you will also deny or degrade the service to the other one who has, in fact, paid you. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
- On Oct 18, 2021, at 1:40 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: > Sabri Berisha wrote: > >> Therefore, anti-trust intervention is only considered in markets >> where there are a relatively small amount of competitors and this >> lack of competition harms the consumer, or when one or more dominant >> parties use their position to force smaller companies into >> unreasonable compliance with their wishes. > > Didn't network neutrality become an issue because "one or more > dominant parties use their position to force smaller companies > into unreasonable compliance with their wishes"? The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control a network owned and paid for by someone else. Your version of "unreasonable" and my version of "unreasonable" are on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is unreasonable for you to tell me how to run configure my routers, and you think it is unreasonable for me to configure my routers that I pay for the way that I want to. Net neutrality is just a fancy word for "I don't like the fifth"*. >> The CDN market has multiple competitors, and the barrier to entry the >> market is relatively low as you don't have any last-mile issues or >> difficult-to-get government license requirements. > > To enter the market competitively, you must have large number > of servers at many locations, I think. Hence the "relatively low". It is far easier to start a CDN than it is to start a residential internet service. At least here in the U.S. Thanks, Sabri * The fifth, besides the right to remain silent, also contains the takings clause.
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 09:51, Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > But, with settlement free peering between tier 1 ISPs, tier 2 > ISPs having transit/paid peering with a tier 1 ISP will receive > routes from peers of the tier 1 ISP. There is transit traffic > exchanged between tier 1 ISPs over settlement free peering. > > So, I don't think distinguishing transit from peering > meaningful for precise discussions. > Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product called IP Transit and other expectations if you call the product paid peering. The latter is not providing the whole internet and is cheaper. The so-called "tier" of a company is a meaningless term. Traffic will never traverse two settlement free peering links and this is true for "tier 1" ISPs as well. Paid peering is understood to be the same as a settlement free peering except for not being settlement free. Therefore a paid peering with an "tier 1" ISP will not provide any traffic that traverses their settlement free peering links with other "tier 1" ISPs. It is quite possible some "tier 1" ISPs do not see the point in providing such a product but then they just won't offer paid peering - only IP transit. In more technical terms, no peering link, settlement free or for pay, has routes for the whole internet. If the peering had routes for the whole internet it would be IP transit. This is achieved by only announcing own customer routes on the peering links and _not_ announcing routes received from other peering links. You get access to their customers but you need to make other arrangements to get access to the rest of the internet. > > > For smaller ISPs it works the other way around. An evil CDN could > > attempt to charge us, the small ISP. I am happy that is not > > happening. > > Because of natural monopoly and PON, most access/retail ISPs > enjoy their domination in their own area regardless of their > sizes. > This is not true in our part of the world. The regulator is requiring all major last mile infrastructure owners to give access to reseller ISPs breaking that monopoly. My own company both owns infrastructure (FTTH and FTTB / apartment networks) and resell using FTTH / DSL owned by other companies. Plus we have three 5G networks providing an alternative and also breaking the monopoly. Regards, Baldur
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
"at some point it just doesn't matter and becomes marketing hype." There is A LOT of hype over increasing broadband speeds, so much so to the point where immense oversubscription is the only practical way forward, then people piss and moan that ISPs didn't build enough to keep up with non-existent (at the time) demand. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Michael Thomas" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 3:13:50 PM Subject: Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge On 10/10/21 12:57 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 10/10/21 21:33, Matthew Petach wrote: If you sell a service for less than it costs to provide, simply based on the hopes that people won't actually *use* it, that's called "gambling", and I have very little sympathy for businesses that gamble and lose. You arrived at the crux of the issue, quickly, which was the basis of my initial response last week - infrastructure is dying. And we simply aren't motivated enough to figure it out. When you spend 25+ years sitting in a chair waiting for the phone to ring or the door to open, for someone to ask, "How much for 5Mbps?", your misfortune will never be your own fault. Isn't that what Erlang numbers are all about? My suspicion is that after about 100Mbs most people wouldn't notice the difference in most cases. My ISP is about 25Mbs on a good day (DSL) and it serves our needs fine and have never run into bandwidth constraints. Maybe if we were streaming 4k all of the time it might be different, but frankly the difference for 4k isn't all that big. It's sort of like phone screen resolution: at some point it just doesn't matter and becomes marketing hype. Mike
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
Imagine it's 2021. Over a decade ago the world started a transition from captive audio broadcast media from a single source towards unicast streaming from multiple sources. You operate an ISP network that was designed for a past era and you have been slow to keep up with your competitors or with the changing trends. Customers are not happy. Your customers don't understand. People don't understand. You are a cog in the machine that is causing resistance and see an opportunity to get paid twice for a single job. You won't get out of the way once paid, in fact you'll grasp at your position even harder to ensure that you will continue to get paid. You are SK Telecom. On 10/18/2021 9:02 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: Imagine it's 2008 and your AP is pushing out 3 mbps. Customers are all happy. Suddenly, Netflix demands 10x what you're offering. Customers are not happy. Customers don't understand. People don't understand. There are a million cogs in the machine and if the path of least resistance is to turn left, an ISP is going to turn left. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:19 AM Blake Hudson wrote: On 10/1/2021 8:48 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: > South Korean Internet service provider SK Broadband has sued Netflix > to pay for costs from increased network traffic and maintenance work > because of a surge of viewers to the U.S. firm's content, an SK > spokesperson said on Friday. > [...] > Last year, Netflix had brought its own lawsuit on whether it had any > obligation to pay SK for network usage, arguing Netflix's duty ends > with creating content and leaving it accessible. It said SK's expenses > were incurred while fulfilling its contractual obligations to Internet > users, and delivery in the Internet world is "free of charge as a > principle", according to court documents. > [...] > > https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/skorea-broadband-firm-sues-netflix-after-traffic-surge-squid-game-2021-10-01/ > > I'll never understand over how ISPs see content providers as the enemy (or a rival). The content is why ISPs have customers. Don't get upset when your customer uses the service that you sold them (in a way that is precisely in accordance with the expected usage)! Netflix, as an example, has even been willing to bear most of the cost with peering or bringing servers to ISPs to reduce the ISP's costs and improve the ISP customer's experience. It's about time Netflix played chicken with one of these ISPs and stopped offering service (or offered limited service) to the ISPs that try to extort them and other content providers: Sorry, your service provider does not believe in net neutrality and has imposed limitations on your Netflix experience. For a better Netflix experience, consider exploring one of these other nearby internet providers: x, y, z.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
Imagine it's 2008 and your AP is pushing out 3 mbps. Customers are all happy. Suddenly, Netflix demands 10x what you're offering. Customers are not happy. Customers don't understand. People don't understand. There are a million cogs in the machine and if the path of least resistance is to turn left, an ISP is going to turn left. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:19 AM Blake Hudson wrote: > > > On 10/1/2021 8:48 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: > > South Korean Internet service provider SK Broadband has sued Netflix > > to pay for costs from increased network traffic and maintenance work > > because of a surge of viewers to the U.S. firm's content, an SK > > spokesperson said on Friday. > > [...] > > Last year, Netflix had brought its own lawsuit on whether it had any > > obligation to pay SK for network usage, arguing Netflix's duty ends > > with creating content and leaving it accessible. It said SK's expenses > > were incurred while fulfilling its contractual obligations to Internet > > users, and delivery in the Internet world is "free of charge as a > > principle", according to court documents. > > [...] > > > > > https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/skorea-broadband-firm-sues-netflix-after-traffic-surge-squid-game-2021-10-01/ > > > > > > I'll never understand over how ISPs see content providers as the enemy > (or a rival). The content is why ISPs have customers. Don't get upset > when your customer uses the service that you sold them (in a way that is > precisely in accordance with the expected usage)! > > Netflix, as an example, has even been willing to bear most of the cost > with peering or bringing servers to ISPs to reduce the ISP's costs and > improve the ISP customer's experience. It's about time Netflix played > chicken with one of these ISPs and stopped offering service (or offered > limited service) to the ISPs that try to extort them and other content > providers: Sorry, your service provider does not believe in net > neutrality and has imposed limitations on your Netflix experience. For a > better Netflix experience, consider exploring one of these other nearby > internet providers: x, y, z. >
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
Mark Tinka wrote: Yes, but nobody cares about Layer 1 or Layer 2. As you wrote: You can't tell me that US$700 million being spent to build a > submarine cable around a continent is something to scoff at. you do care. Look, I'm not saying the ITU are bad FYI, I'm not arguing especially for ITU. But, it do have some regulatory influence for its Members. FYI, IS-IS is part of OSI, which was jointly developed by ISO and ITU, not by IETF at all. You might be forgetting that the IETF adapted IS-IS to IP networks: Just as RIP was imported from XNS world, which does not deny Xerox and ITU/ISO primarily contributed to develop the protocols. I have zero interest in being the profit police. Who am I tell anyone that they are earning too much? Anti-trust agencies, of course. Access networks are subject to regional monopoly unless unbundling is forced by regulatory bodies. Worse, with PON, such unbundling is hard (not impossible, see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5616389). Submarine cables are usually either owned by one party, or a small club. Submarine cables are for backbone. That's why you must distinguish access and backbone. Masataka Ohta
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
> > Otherwise, CDN providers with their own backbone are free riders > ignoring access costs. > I think the Pointy Hairs and Bean Counters would love it if they could ignore all the monthly bills for the access costs that we generate. On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 9:46 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Mark Tinka wrote: > > >> Remember that CDN providers are not neutral at all. > > > > Well, the purpose of a network is whatever its proprietor deems it to > > be, and makes no false advertising about it. > > What? > > > A private enterprise network that carries a company's internal traffic - > > which may or may not interface with an external network that is > > interested in some or all of that traffic - would, in your eyes, be > > classified as not neutral, because it chooses not to use its network to > > provide global IP Transit? > Unless they directly reach their end users, yes, of course. > > The fundamental problem of networking is the last mile problem > that access costs alot more than backbone. > > As such, long distance carriers may peer with access providers > only when they are neutral or pay some of there revenue share > to access providers. > > > In my mind, the word "transit" refers to carriage between two > > non-homogeneous points. So network A (customer) will talk to network C > > (content) via my network B (transit). If the traffic originates either > > from A or C, BUT terminates/ends inside of B, I do not consider that > > transit. > > With your definition, as CDN providers with their own backbone are > not "transit", they can not request access providers (and, ultimately, > end users) peering without paying some as compensation for access > network cost. > > Otherwise, CDN providers with their own backbone are free riders > ignoring access costs. > > Masataka Ohta >
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On 10/18/21 14:16, Masataka Ohta wrote: As copper and optical fiber for access politically belongs to ITU, DSL and optical fiber standards of ITU are followed by the IETF world. Yes, but nobody cares about Layer 1 or Layer 2. Once the road is built, all anyone remembers is the car I drove across it, not whether the tar used to build the road was mixed well :-). I actually joined an ITU meeting at Geneva, when I was actively acting for DSL in Japan. Good for you. Look, I'm not saying the ITU are bad - I am saying that they are "more structured and rigid", than Internet-land. And that is okay. There is a reason we TCP/IP became dominant. FYI, IS-IS is part of OSI, which was jointly developed by ISO and ITU, not by IETF at all. You might be forgetting that the IETF adapted IS-IS to IP networks: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1195 I'm not sure anyone running IS-IS in an ISP environment, today, is running it for CLNS. But we thank the ISO, immensely :-). Are you agreeing with me that they are earning a lot more than they should? I have zero interest in being the profit police. Who am I tell anyone that they are earning too much? If you make something people find value in, the billions will automatically flow your way - you can't stop it. Is it a perfect system, probably not, but it's what we've got. Access networks are subject to regional monopoly unless unbundling is forced by regulatory bodies. Worse, with PON, such unbundling is hard (not impossible, see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5616389). Submarine cables are usually either owned by one party, or a small club. It's no different - and trying to be a member of the club can be just as demoralizing as local regulation on terrestrial builds. That said, different markets have different policies on access networks. So a single policy for what we think is best is not practical. Moreover, if access networks are expensive due to backward regulation and monopolistic promotion, then that is an artificial problem that can be removed, but the actors choose not to. You can't blame a content operator for that market position. So, you are a neo-liberalist. Good luck. I also like the one where whole gubbermints shutdown the Internet for elections, or to hush voices. I discriminate equally :-). Though precise definition of "tier 1" is a rat hole, that there are entities called tier 1, which are the primary elements of the Internet backbone, is a common concept shared by most of us, maybe excluding you. I know many here that have moved on from the "tier" terminologies. But it's unnecessary for them to chime in. There hasn't been "a core of the Internet" for a long while, and anyone still believing that either in reality or words is living in a fantasy world long gone, which is partially why infrastructure finds itself becoming less and less relevant, and being swallowed up by BigContent. I mean, if you missed the fact that Facebook went down, and people thought the Internet had stopped, then maybe Facebook are a Tier 1... Mark.
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
Mark Tinka wrote: As you are seemingly requesting international legal formality, let me point out there are "International Telecommunication Regulations", based on which network neutrality is discussed by ITU. And since when does the IETF world follow the ITU standards? As copper and optical fiber for access politically belongs to ITU, DSL and optical fiber standards of ITU are followed by the IETF world. I actually joined an ITU meeting at Geneva, when I was actively acting for DSL in Japan. Even though ITU heads don't think much of IETF heads, you can't find an SDH or DWDM port in a laptop. On the other hand, GMPLS is based on OSPF, IS-IS and RSVP-TE :-). FYI, IS-IS is part of OSI, which was jointly developed by ISO and ITU, not by IETF at all. Well, I'll be asking my bank to sell me some IP Transit or DIA, then, since they are running an IP network. Feel free to do so. It may be, it may not be. The reason is only one or a small handful of folk are investing US$700 million into a submarine cable. Are you agreeing with me that they are earning a lot more than they should? On the other hand, access networks are built by several operators, all competing. Access networks are subject to regional monopoly unless unbundling is forced by regulatory bodies. Worse, with PON, such unbundling is hard (not impossible, see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5616389). Willing buyer, willing seller. That's all that's needed. If the seller doesn't like the buyer, they move on. If the buyer doesn't like the seller, they move on. So, you are a neo-liberalist. Good luck. Are you saying that there is no such thing as tier 1 ISPs? Hehe, let's not go down that rat hole. > > But no, I don't believe in "tiers" for service provider networks. > Haven't done so in nearly 15 years. Though precise definition of "tier 1" is a rat hole, that there are entities called tier 1, which are the primary elements of the Internet backbone, is a common concept shared by most of us, maybe excluding you. Masataka Ohta
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
On 10/18/21 10:11, Masataka Ohta wrote: As you are seemingly requesting international legal formality, let me point out there are "International Telecommunication Regulations", based on which network neutrality is discussed by ITU. And since when does the IETF world follow the ITU standards? Even though ITU heads don't think much of IETF heads, you can't find an SDH or DWDM port in a laptop. On the other hand, GMPLS is based on OSPF, IS-IS and RSVP-TE :-). No, of course. So? Well, I'll be asking my bank to sell me some IP Transit or DIA, then, since they are running an IP network. That cost is negligible compared to the cost to prepare access network all over the continent, I'm afraid. It may be, it may not be. The reason is only one or a small handful of folk are investing US$700 million into a submarine cable. On the other hand, access networks are built by several operators, all competing. So no single operator building an access network is spending more than the content folk laying pipe in the Atlantic and Indian oceans. The essential difference is whether they are neutral or not. Well, the issue is you want to label things. I can see this is what is causing your confusion. Willing buyer, willing seller. That's all that's needed. If the seller doesn't like the buyer, they move on. If the buyer doesn't like the seller, they move on. Are you saying that there is no such thing as tier 1 ISPs? Hehe, let's not go down that rat hole. But no, I don't believe in "tiers" for service provider networks. Haven't done so in nearly 15 years. Heck, my marketing team are always asking if we can identify ourselves as "Tier 1" because we own and operate a submarine cable. I'm sure you can guess my answer to them... Personally, I don't care whether you are "transit-free" or not. You cannot provide an Internet service to the entire world from just one operator (network or content). So trying to be "bigger" than the other guy is a pointless exercise. Jane + Thatho don't care about your measuring contest. Mark.
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
Sabri Berisha wrote: Therefore, anti-trust intervention is only considered in markets where there are a relatively small amount of competitors and this lack of competition harms the consumer, or when one or more dominant parties use their position to force smaller companies into unreasonable compliance with their wishes. Didn't network neutrality become an issue because "one or more dominant parties use their position to force smaller companies into unreasonable compliance with their wishes"? The CDN market has multiple competitors, and the barrier to entry the market is relatively low as you don't have any last-mile issues or difficult-to-get government license requirements. To enter the market competitively, you must have large number of servers at many locations, I think. Masataka Ohta
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
Mark Tinka wrote: What? I will use my network for what I want my network to do for me. There are no international rules about why a network must be built. As you are seemingly requesting international legal formality, let me point out there are "International Telecommunication Regulations", based on which network neutrality is discussed by ITU. Unless they directly reach their end users, yes, of course. So by your logic, a bank's internal network used to drive its ATM machines is not neutral because one cannot use that network for global IP Transit? No, of course. So? You can't tell me that US$700 million being spent to build a submarine cable around a continent is something to scoff at. That cost is negligible compared to the cost to prepare access network all over the continent, I'm afraid. > Okay, so by your logic, "access providers" should pay CDN's for > peering, because the CDN's have spent millions building submarine > cables and data centres around the world to bring their service to > the access providers. After all, why give the access providers a free > ride either? The essential difference is whether they are neutral or not. > In case it's not clear, that last paragraph was sarcastic. It's 2021 > - long distance, access, backbone, metro, e.t.c. Those are boxes that > don't exist anymore. Are you saying that there is no such thing as tier 1 ISPs? Masataka Ohta
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
Baldur Norddahl wrote: Neutral backbone providers don't peer with access/retail ISPs. They sell transit to them. FYI, that is called paid peering. > Paid peering is not the same product as IP Transit. In general a > packet never traverse two peering links because that would mean the > middle man is not getting paid to move the traffic. So, there is terminology confusion because, these days, many people distinguish transit from peering without precise understanding on the peering situations. Paid peering with a backbone provider will get you routes from their paying customers but not from their peers. That argument may be applicable to the simplest cases of, so called, peering between leaf ISPs and transit peering (here, "transit peering" seems to be a proper terminology accepted by most) between leaf ISPs and upper level ISPs. But, with settlement free peering between tier 1 ISPs, tier 2 ISPs having transit/paid peering with a tier 1 ISP will receive routes from peers of the tier 1 ISP. There is transit traffic exchanged between tier 1 ISPs over settlement free peering. So, I don't think distinguishing transit from peering meaningful for precise discussions. I do not want Netflix to pay me. You are so generous. Let me tell you the point. Large ISP can exploit their domination of the marked to double dip, which means they want to be paid twice. That happens to be not neutral and is a way to make the customer pay a hidden fee. For smaller ISPs it works the other way around. An evil CDN could attempt to charge us, the small ISP. I am happy that is not happening. Because of natural monopoly and PON, most access/retail ISPs enjoy their domination in their own area regardless of their sizes. Masataka Ohta
