> > But, I certainly mean that CDN operators should not request > peering directly to access/retail ISPs merely because they have > their own transit, because the transit is not at all neutral. >
I'm still confused. Let's say I have a CDN network, with a datacenter somewhere, an edge site somewhere else. I carry my bits from my datacenter, across my internal network, to my edge site. This is where I intend to hand the bits over to someone else to carry them to the end user. Let's say in this site, I have a paid transit connection , and a peering session directly with the end user's ISP. Where is anything related to neutrality being 'violated', regardless of which path I choose to send the bits out? On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:36 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Tom Beecher wrote: > > >> For network neutrality, backbone providers *MUST* be neutral > >> for contents they carry. > >> > >> However, CDN providers having their own backbone are using > >> their backbone for contents they prefer, which is *NOT* > >> neutral at all. > >> > >> As such, access/retail providers may pay for peering with > >> neutral backbone providers for their customers but should > >> reject direct peering request from, actively behaving against > >> neutrality, CDN providers. > > > If I am understanding you correctly, are you arguing that anyone with a > > network MUST be forced to become a transit provider for anyone else, in > the > > name of "neutrality"? > > No, not at all. > > For example, CDN (N stands for a network) operators may rely on > neutral transit providers to connect their CDN to access/retail > providers. > > But, I certainly mean that CDN operators should not request > peering directly to access/retail ISPs merely because they have > their own transit, because the transit is not at all neutral. > > Masataka Ohta >
