I have to agree with Dan in that even if you disagreed with the talk you
have to agree that it probably spawned relevant discussion and reflection
(both on and off list). I would hate to see a move to ideas and discussions
that are chosen simply for offending the fewest people. Another sort of
simi
numbers and I think people have been pretty clear in their
objection to metered billing. Metered billing would also probably hurt
content providers more than paid peering would so it's the worst option all
around. I read complaints about the way things are handled all the time and
complaini
That was an interesting read but it's not the whole story. Skip to the
TL;DR if you'd like but I'll attempt to explain what happened. What he
isn't saying is the roles of the companies involved have changed over the
last 10 years. Mostly gone are the days that content providers and access
networks
Security is a layered approach though. I can't recall any server or service
that runs in listening state (and reachable from public address space) that
hasn't had some type of remotely exploitable vulnerability. It's hard to
lean on operating systems and software companies to default services to
of
;Because you need to reach our customers, and we're the only path to them,
> so we have leverage."
> *blank stare*
> "So you're willing to give your customers crappy service because your
> customers don't have alternate options and you think we need this more than
at some of the companies
they are in dispute with. If nothing else it would result in having similar
traffic profiles and settlement free would start to make more sense so
everybody wins.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astle
>Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
with their crappy last mile
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
access to the Internet paid for by residential s
10:04 AM, Nick B wrote:
> The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
> dipping.
> Nick
> On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, "Rick Astley" wrote:
>
>> Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know
>> the
>> specific
e links.
> Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening
> at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem
> reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering
> points and call it even. No?
>
> --
&
>How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add
ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing
something?
Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the
specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering
of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a
specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access
I think most the points made here are valid about why it isn't an easy
problem to solve with multicast.
Lets say for instance they had a multicast stream that sent the most popular
content (which to Randy's point may not cover much) and 48 hours of that
stream was cached locally on the CPE. What is
12 matches
Mail list logo
