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 <asr@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 <bob@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