On Dec 17, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Benson Schliesser > <bens...@queuefull.net> wrote: >> I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but my guess: I suspect the >> proposal was along the lines of longest-path / best-exit routing by >> Level(3). In other words, if L(3) carries the traffic (most of the way) to >> the customer, then Comcast has no complaint--the costs can be more fairly >> distributed. The "modest investment" is probably in tools to evaluate >> traffic and routing metrics, to make this work. This isn't really *new* to >> the peering community, but it isn't normal either. > > That is a reasonable guess, but Level3's FCC filing yesterday spells > out with certainty that Level3 did offer to "cold potato" traffic onto > Comcast (it does not mention the technical means e.g. MED honoring, > CDN smarts, or otherwise) and that Comcast refused. > [...]
Comcast's latest: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064677
