I stand corrected. That's what I get for going off memory. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
---------------------------------------- From: "Scott Whyte" <swh...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:48 PM To: n...@flhsi.com Subject: Re: Google/Youtube problems On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Nick Olsen <n...@flhsi.com> wrote: > I think this would be true if they offered some form of paid peering. > > Google want's a good fast route to your customers, And your customers want > a good fast route to Google. > > IF Google ran its transit at or near congestion. This could degrade your > customers performance. After so long, You'd contact Google and attempt to > troubleshoot. And they would say if you want good peering with them, You > should pay them to peer. Where you could control just how much traffic was > on your port and expand it if needed. Pretty sure this was Comcast and > level3/Netflix did. But Comcast had the winning leverage (more eyeballs) in > the discussion. > > But, I don't think Google does this. My knowledge on AS15169 is limited. > But I recall them having a very strict peering policy. Strict? Really? https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html > > Nick Olsen > Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 > > ---------------------------------------- > From: "Joly MacFie" <j...@punkcast.com> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:21 PM > To: "joel jaeggli" <joe...@bogus.com> > Subject: Re: Google/Youtube problems > > WIth my limited understanding of such topics I've long been confused by > something I read a couple of years back - in an Arbor report perhaps - to > the effect that by being the originator of so much traffic, and as they > built out their own network, Google were making money on transit. > > Can anyone elaborate or refute? > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > >> On 11/19/12 5:59 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: >> >>> What I'm trying to say, I can't see youtube generating anywhere nearly >>> enough revenue who shift 10% (or more) of Internet. And to explain this >>> conundrum to myself, I've speculated accounting magic (which I'd frown >>> upon) and leveraging market position to get free capacity (which is ok, > I'd >>> do the same, had I the leverage) >>> >> Or there's a simpler explanation. Which is that it makes money either >> directly or as part of a salubrious interaction with other google >> properties. >> >> They had about 2.5Billion left over for their trouble in the quarter >> ending 9/30 which isn't too shabby on a gross of 14 billion. >> >> > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - >
