On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but my guess: I suspect the proposal was along the lines of longest-path / best-exit routing by Level(3). In other words, if L(3) carries the traffic (most of the way) to the customer, then Comcast has no complaint--the costs can be more fairly distributed. The "modest investment" is probably in tools to evaluate traffic and routing metrics, to make this work. This isn't really *new* to the peering community, but it isn't normal either.
That is a reasonable guess, but Level3's FCC filing yesterday spells out with certainty that Level3 did offer to "cold potato" traffic onto Comcast (it does not mention the technical means e.g. MED honoring, CDN smarts, or otherwise) and that Comcast refused. I agree that the proposed Comcast solution may not be truly "new" but instead unusual, but unless "Backdoor Santa" tells us what they really have in mind, I suppose we won't know. If I were Comcast, I would want to move the significant cost of detailed netflow collection and analysis infrastructure onto backbone providers by wrapping that accounting mechanism up into my settlement agreements with peers, as well as the expense of a cost-ineffective network, and demand that Level3 and Comcast really calculate how much each network spends on each bit, and share in that cost. In theory, this is what happens when an ILEC opens a rate case with its state regulator; and it is how settlements for POTS calls work (at a very basic level.) Actually, if I were Comcast, I would focus on running my business more efficiently, as Level3 has thrown down the gauntlet with the FCC and requested that the FCC dictate to Comcast specifically, and explicitly all other broadband access providers, how they will interconnect with peers and transit suppliers. Level3 must think that their business would be better off with regulatory oversight of peering, or they would not have taken this action. Comcast should realize that, of the three potential motives for their recent actions I have previously outlined, #1 and #3 are not just highly unlikely, but would be practically impossible in a regulated environment. As such, they should further realize that their peering committee is driven by motive #2, ego, and find the best way to change their position without losing too much credibility. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts