So you're actually saying that it's *Cogent's* fault for not taking into account that Netflix was going to be horribly asymmetric, in taking them on as a client? I'm fine with that, but what's their solution? ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone@gmail.com> To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:25:49 PM Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics You didn't misunderstand me. But that's not the only point I was making. Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it doesn't have interconnections with. Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1 peering agreement. Cogent sends more than that and as such is in breach of contract. It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept penalties. So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's Cogent's. They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix, with the service they purchased.
Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the internet's traffic. That leads to special considerations for Netflix as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts. Anyone promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone@gmail.com>
Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements. Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to ask for free stuff.
I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's *fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*.
Did I misunderstand you?
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
-- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274