On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Traffic Symmetry is a distraction that the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS would like us
> to
> focus on.
>
> The reality is that $ACCESS_PROVIDERS want us to focus on that so that we
> don’t
> see what is really going on which is a battle to deeper (or av
Jason,
In your first reply you mention a lot of "we're all good, we comply, we
don't do x etc"
However you seem to have forgotten to reply to question #1 that Arvinder
asked. (#2 you were able to reply)
http://comcrust.com/ is already four years old it would seem enough time to
get an upgrade in
On May 16, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Scott Helms wrote:
>> Mike,
>> In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said I
>> have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10
>> million anytime I want and the percentage of people who
Traffic Symmetry is a distraction that the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS would like us to
focus on.
The reality is that $ACCESS_PROVIDERS want us to focus on that so that we don’t
see what is really going on which is a battle to deeper (or avoid increasing
peering
capacity with) networks they think they can
On May 16, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Blake,
>
> I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items.
>
> 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today.
Not true. Most cell phones have HD cameras. Most CCD video cameras sold in
the last 5 yea
On Sunday, May 18, 2014 11:57:51 AM Randy Bush wrote:
> which is amusing given you have massive east coast to
> europe fiber capacity.
My point exactly - as an operator, it costs me close to
nothing given all the capacity we have (and can further
light) on this path, but the other guys do not n
> I'm forced to peer with certain African providers in London
> and Amsterdam because they don't want to peer in Africa,
> where we are literally are an x-connect away from each
> other. And the reasons are not even because either of us is
> larger or smaller than the other... it's just legacy
> Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990.
not so much. that kink came in later
randy
On Friday, May 16, 2014 09:44:55 PM Scott Helms wrote:
> I don't think that anyone disputes that when you improve
> the upstream you do get an uptick in usage in that
> direction. What I take issue with is the notion that
> the upstream is anything like downstream even when the
> capacity is the
On Friday, May 16, 2014 09:11:56 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
> But hey, why peer at little or no cost if they
> can instead hold out and possibly peer at a negative
> cost?
Because they hope that, one day, you'll cave and become a
customer. Isn't that more prestigious :-)?
Mark.
signature.asc
Desc
On Friday, May 16, 2014 08:52:31 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though?
> Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not
> be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even
> 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic
> over longe
On Friday, May 16, 2014 08:47:53 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
> How residential ISPs recoup costs (or simply increase
> revenue/profit) is another question entirely. I think
> the most insightful comment in this discussion was made
> by Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym), when he
> states that ISPs
On May 16, 2014 12:21 PM, "Matthew Petach" wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> > > in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
> > ISP
> > > to p
Matt Palmer wrote the following on 5/16/2014 3:54 PM:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:47:53PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:
Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym)
Why would you assume that? Mr. Astley has long been a champion of solid
network engineering, and even net neutrality... he's long said th
Duh.
On 5/16/14, 1:54 PM, "Matt Palmer" wrote:
>On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:47:53PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:
>> Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym)
>
>Why would you assume that? Mr. Astley has long been a champion of solid
>network engineering, and even net neutrality... he's long said tha
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:47:53PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:
> Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym)
Why would you assume that? Mr. Astley has long been a champion of solid
network engineering, and even net neutrality... he's long said that he's
"Never gonna drop a route, never gonna fill a li
On May 16, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> In the US, we just surpassed 1/2 of the population who have that capability,
> iirc. They
> call them phones nowadays.
Many of them have native IPv6 as well, this also hasn't gotten significant
number of legacy/incumbents to deploy yet eith
Michael,
I didn't claim Webrtc is vapor, I claim that pervasive video calling is
vapor. Further, even if that prediction is wrong pervasive video calling
isn't enough even if 100% of users adopt it to swing the need for
symmetrical bandwidth. An average Skype/Google Hangout/Apple is less than
40
Scott Helms wrote:
I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time
(well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and
none generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link.
Most of the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least 6
I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time
(well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and none
generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link. Most of
the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least 6 mbps upstreams
and man
Scott Helms wrote:
Mike,
In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I
said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see
another 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap
their upstream in both of those sample groups for more than
Mike,
In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said
I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10
million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their upstream
in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the la
Mark Tinka wrote:
One of the use-cases we thought about when deploying an FTTH
backbone was having remote PVR's. So rather than record and
save linear Tv programming on the STB, record and save it in
the network. This could only be done with symmetric
bandwidth.
Isn't this already the cas
Scott Helms wrote:
Michael,
No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of
requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but
the reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority
of customers don't use the upstream capacity they have
Mark,
I don't think that anyone disputes that when you improve the upstream you
do get an uptick in usage in that direction. What I take issue with is the
notion that the upstream is anything like downstream even when the capacity
is there. Upstream on ADSL is horribad, especially the first gen
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:45:06 PM Scott Helms wrote:
> Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly
> asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video.
>
> Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't
> generate that much traffic per session.
Our experience showed that there is
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
> Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM:
>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>>>
>>> in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
>>> ISP
>>> to purport themselves to be a
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>> > in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
>> > ISP
>> > to purport themselves
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:35:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Could you expand a bit, Mark on "Social media forces the
> use of symmetric bandwidth"? Which social media
> platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows
> that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry?
What we saw with
Matthew,
There is a difference between what should be philosophically and what
happened with Level 3 which is a contractual issue.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
On
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:14 PM, James R Cutler <
james.cut...@consultant.com> wrote:
>
> All this talk about symmetry and asymmetry is interesting.
>
> Has anyone actually quantified how much congestion is due to buffer bloat
> which is, in turn, exacerbated by asymmetric connections?
>
>
> Jame
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> > in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
> ISP
> > to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect
>
All this talk about symmetry and asymmetry is interesting.
Has anyone actually quantified how much congestion is due to buffer bloat which
is, in turn, exacerbated by asymmetric connections?
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
signature.asc
Descrip
Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP
to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering
ratios to be symmetric
is 's
Blake,
I'm not sure what the relationship between what an access network sells has
to do with how their peering is done. I realize that everyone's favorite
target is Comcast right now, but would anyone bat an eye over AT&T making
the same requirement since they have much more in the way of transi
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP
> to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering
> ratios to be symmetric
is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is a
Lazlo,
You're correct that some applications are being restricted, but AFAIK in
North America they are all being restricted for quite valid network
management reasons. While back in the day I ran Sendmail and sometimes
qmail on my home connection I was also responsible with my mail server and
mor
Oh, I'm not proposing symmetrical connectivity at all. I'm just
supporting the argument that in the context of this discussion I think
it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral
carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric when the
overwhelming majori
I'd just like to point out that a lot of people are in fact using their
upstream capability, and the operators always throw a fit and try to cut off
specific applications to force it back into the idle state. For example P2P
things like torrents and most recently the open NTP and DNS servers.
Blake,
You're absolutely correct. The world adapts to the reality that we find
ourselves in via normal market mechanics. The problem with proposing that
connectivity for residential customers should be more symmetrical is that
its expensive, which is why we as operators didn't roll it out that w
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the
>> popularity of OTT video.
>>
>
> Until my other half decides to upload a video.
>
> Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits t
Michael,
No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of
requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the
reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of
customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have personal
Thanks for the insight Scott. I appreciate the experience and point of
view you're adding to this discussion (not just the responses to me).
While I might be playing the devil's advocate here a bit, I think one
could argue each of the points you've made below.
I do feel that general usage patt
Scott Helms wrote:
Mark,
Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the
popularity of OTT video.
Until my other half decides to upload a video.
Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits that I can use in whichever
direction happens
to be needed at the moment?
Mik
Blake,
I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items.
1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today.
2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it
themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to
entry e
Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive applications. I
don't deny that a < 1 Mbps video call is both less common and consumes
less bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. However, if Americans had access
to symmetric connections capable of reliably making HD video calls (they
don't,
Blake,
None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic
patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly
improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even
if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling da
Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM:
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Tinka"
While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball
networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social
media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH),
putting even mo
Mark,
Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the
popularity of OTT video.
Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't generate that much
traffic per session.
"During peak period, Real-Time Entertainment traffic is by far the most
dominant traffic catego
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Tinka"
> While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball
> networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social
> media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH),
> putting even more demand on the network,
Oh yes; clearly, Twit
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:08:33 PM Scott Helms wrote:
> Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic
> here in the US or internationally. Broadband suffers
> here for a number of reasons, mainly topological and
> population density, in comparison to places like Japan,
> parts (but cer
Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic here in the US or
internationally. Broadband suffers here for a number of reasons, mainly
topological and population density, in comparison to places like Japan,
parts (but certainly not all) of Europe, and South Korea.
Scott Helms
Vice Pre
On Friday, May 16, 2014 03:54:33 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> customers. 2. This is because when they built their
> business models, they didn’t expect their customers to
> use nearly as much of their promised bandwidth as they
> are now using. Most of the models were constructed
> around the idea that
On 5/16/14, 7:56 AM, "Vinny Abello" wrote:
>I think he's questioning why packets from speedtest.comcast.net have CS1
>if everything is supposedly equal, and what that is used for. A quick
>Wireshark shows that to be true right now running to your Plainfield, NJ
>speedtest site, and my network pee
On May 16, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
>> Broadband is too expensive in the US compared to other places
>
> I have seen this repeated so many times that I assume it's true but I have
> never seen anything objective as to why. I can tell you if you look at
> population density by countr
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Vinny Abello wrote:
> I think he's questioning why packets from speedtest.comcast.net have CS1 if
> everything is supposedly equal, and what that is used for. A quick Wireshark
> shows that to be true right now running to your Plainfield, NJ speedtest
> site, and
All the talk about ratios is a red herring… The real issue boils down to this:
1. The access (eyeball) networks don’t want to bear the cost of delivering
what they promised to their customers.
2. This is because when they built their business models, they didn’t
expect their customers
On , Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 5/15/14, 12:49 PM, "arvindersi...@mail2tor.com"
wrote:
I have two issues with the comments:
2. You mention that all packets treated equally - no games. Why does
AS7922 assign the speed test different DSCP from regular internet
connection?
I have no idea wha
On 5/15/14, 12:49 PM, "arvindersi...@mail2tor.com"
wrote:
>I have two issues with the comments:
>
>2. You mention that all packets treated equally - no games. Why does
>AS7922 assign the speed test different DSCP from regular internet
>connection?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Our
>What you're missing is that the transit provider is
selling full routes. The access network is selling
paid peering, which is a tiny fraction of the routes.
Considering they charge on a $per/mb basis I don't think its just routes
they are selling. It looks a lot like they are selling bits. From
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 09:05:57 PM Joe Greco wrote:
> "Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what
> the next big thing next year will be but I promise that
> I won't host it on my network and cause our traffic to
> become lopsided."
You mean like almost every other mobile carrier
On 14-05-15 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:
> As primarily an eyeball network with a token (8000 quoted) number of transit
> customers it does not seem reasonable for them to expect balanced ratios on
> peering links.
Pardon my ignorance here, but isn't there a massive difference between
settlement
Hi,
On May 15, 2014, at 12:12 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote:
> Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS
> 7922 to serve a global Internet.
Actually, I suspect Jason is operating 'his' AS to serve Comcast customers
and/or shareholders...
Regards,
-drc
si
l not to let the opposite
situation occur either...
Keenan
From: NANOG on behalf of Scott Helms
Sent: May 15, 2014 12:54 PM
To: Joe Greco
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:05
Owen this is interesting I think also...but how do u prove motive?
Arvinder
>> Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers².
>> Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then
>> you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
>> Nick
>
> Cl
Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS
7922 to serve a global Internet.
In US, there is not a lot of choke because all the big Internet property -
Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon - pay toll to reach Comcast Broadband
customer. If they do not pay u, there is n
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to
>> send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the
>> internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and
>> I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still got to kee
Jason, like Kevin, thank you very much for opening up to us. It is not
every day that someone so close to the issues posts with insight.
>From what we see here in India, it is true only Comcast and Verizon are
access networks with peering problems. We are able to reach Cox, RCN,
Charter, Sonoma
Yes Kevin, this is understood - but valid observation from Nick.
Can you pls answer my question first? Very curious.
Arvinder
> Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to
> trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for
> the same reason.
Kevin first thank you for posting to NANOG to help with the issues...not
every day we see Comcast executive on engineering mailing lists. *LOL*
I have two issues with the comments:
1. You mention that congestion issues to Comcast peers are temporary. I
notice AS6543 "Tata Communication" - major
On 5/15/14, 4:16 PM, "Scott Berkman"
mailto:sc...@sberkman.net>> wrote:
Everyone knows Comcast uses (or used) Sandvine for shaping (unless
they've finished building a new probably internal solution, I'm sure
this is another secret we'll only have rumors to work with, ).
Comcast turned off Sandvin
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 07:29:06AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> The result of deregulating the current environment would only be more pain
> and cost to the consumer than we currently have with no improvement in
> speeds or capabilities and no additional innovation.
Indeed. While I certainly under
I guess I should have said this another way.
Everyone knows Comcast uses (or used) Sandvine for shaping (unless
they've finished building a new probably internal solution, I'm sure
this is another secret we'll only have rumors to work with, ). By
shaping other traffic (IPSEC VPNs or P2P traff
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain
> balanced y=
> > ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where
> do=
> > es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
>
> It doesn'
On 5/15/14, 3:05 PM, "Joe Greco" wrote:
>"Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what the next big
>thing next year will be but I promise that I won't host it on my network
>and cause our traffic to become lopsided."
>
>Wow. Is that what you're saying?
Of course not.
JL
> That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade for =
> Flash on my Mac.
Try
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We
> So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced y=
> ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where do=
> es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
It doesn't strike you as a ridiculous promise to extract from someone?
"H
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Chris,
>
> You're not reading what I said, nor did I make a statement anything like
> one of the silly things you referenced (640k ram etc). Prioritization isn't
yes I made a joke. (*three of them actually)
> that complex and today we handle
If traffic is unbalanced, what determines who is the payer and who is the
payee? Apparently whoever can hold on to their customers better while
performance is shit.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your
> custo
AFAIK Comcast wasn't consuming, "mass amounts of data" from Level 3
(Netflix's transit to them). Are you implying that a retail customer has a
similar expectation (or should) as a tier 1 ISP has for peering? I hope
not, that would be hyperbole verging on the silly. Retail customer
agreement spel
From: Paul Ferguson
On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquitous in this argument.
> If the local distribution networks would like to actually build
> something fast, then this would be a different story.
Okay, then call it the "faster lane" or
> Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain=
> it to 1G, for example.
Throttling is also trying to cram 20G of traffic through that same 10G
link.
> What if a peer wants to go from a balanced relation=
> ship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
No idea -- I use NoScript and block Flash (as well as other dangerous
& annoying embedded content) and it works for me.
- - ferg
On 5/15/2014 11:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade
> for F
That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade for Flash on
my Mac.
Owen
On May 15, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
>
>> It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquito
On May 15, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
>> legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
>
> Twisted pair is certantly "legacy".
>
> Is there a feeling that coax cable/DOSCIS is
I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your
customers are requesting that they send through you if you cannot
maintain a balanced peer relationship with them. It's shameful that
access networks are attempting to not pay for their leeching of mass
amounts of data in clear vio
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> > On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> >> 2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane"
> >
> > I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog has
> > included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no '
> Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers².
> Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then
> you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
> Nick
Claims by some large ISPs that this is “untrue” rest on the claim that they
don’t do t
I said I would step away, but trying to keep some level of emotion out of
this... We all need "rational actor" behavior in the ecosystem. We need our
policies and agree to live up to those policies between players. Random and
inconsistent behavior does not build a well functioning market and is
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced you
can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where does it
end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to switch
o
Chris,
You're not reading what I said, nor did I make a statement anything like
one of the silly things you referenced (640k ram etc). Prioritization
isn't that complex and today we handle the maximum amount of complexity
already since everything is the same priority right now.
You're trying to
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 1s of
> 'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day
> the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service
> flows, while service
Blake Dunlap wrote:
> And the "unbalanced" peers / transit?
Surely it is too much to expect a service provider to actually provide
service even if it is not entirely fair and balanced. It's not like,
you know, anyone was paying them to provide a service ...
[...rewind...]
wrote:
> This is a
Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 1s of
'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day
the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service
flows, while service flows can have equal priority I doubt most operators
will se
Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a
way to avoid technically throttling. Interestingly enough only Comcast and
Verizon are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an
example others will follow.
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Livingo
On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, "Nick B" mailto:n...@pelagiris.org>>
wrote:
By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us to
refuse to upgrade full peers"?
Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain it
to 1G, for example. What if a peer wants t
By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us
to refuse to upgrade full peers"?
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason <
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, "Nick B" wrote:
>
>
> >Yes, you've got "some of the largest Inte
On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, "Nick B" wrote:
>Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers².
>Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then
>you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
>Nick
That is categorically untrue, however nice a sound
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>
>> 2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane"
>>
>
> I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog has
> included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no 'fast
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquitous in this argument.
> If the local distribution networks would like to actually build
> something fast, then this would be a different story.
Okay, then c
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
