...damn; hit Adam in the replies but missed the list...: > With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: > > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
Netflix switching transit providers seems like a bad idea at this point. Comcast: "See?! Now what if we had spent all this time and money to augment our capacity to Cogent/Level3 to handle the inbound Netflix traffic? Now we have to do a bunch of work to upgrade/migrate infrastructure over to $NEWTRANSIT just because Netflix felt like it?!" I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument, but most of this war is about PR anyway... -- Hugo Hugo Slabbert cell: 604.617.3133 email: hugo.slabb...@slabnet.com "If kindness doesn't work, try more kindness." Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Adam Rothschild <a...@latency.net> wrote: > Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure > networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and > China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to > scale up traffic. > > (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, > unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.) > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal <p...@isprime.com> wrote: > > > With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: > > > > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach > Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers? > > > > -P > > > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <a...@latency.net> wrote: > > > >> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of > commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at > scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not. > >> > >> I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a > peering partner... > >> > >> $0.02, > >> -a > >> > >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict > >>> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base > and > >>> other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix > >>> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if > direct > >>> peering is possible. > >>> > >>> Thank You > >>> Bob Evans > >>> CTO > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], > given > >>>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people > >>>>> *already*, > >>>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound > traffic? > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs > >>>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with > their > >>>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from > pussies? > >>>> > >>>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? > >>>> > >>>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would > they > >>>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? > >>>> > >>>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. > >>>> > >>>> brandon > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >
