But, I certainly mean that CDN operators should not request peering directly to access/retail ISPs merely because they have their own transit, because the transit is not at all neutral.
I'm still confused. Let's say I have a CDN network, with a datacenter somewhere, an edge site somewhere else. I carry my bits from my datacenter, across my internal network, to my edge site. This is where I intend to hand the bits over to someone else to carry them to the end user. Let's say in this site, I have a paid transit connection , and a peering session directly with the end user's ISP. Where is anything related to neutrality being 'violated', regardless of which path I choose to send the bits out? On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:36 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Tom Beecher wrote:
For network neutrality, backbone providers *MUST* be neutral for contents they carry.
However, CDN providers having their own backbone are using their backbone for contents they prefer, which is *NOT* neutral at all.
As such, access/retail providers may pay for peering with neutral backbone providers for their customers but should reject direct peering request from, actively behaving against neutrality, CDN providers.
If I am understanding you correctly, are you arguing that anyone with a network MUST be forced to become a transit provider for anyone else, in the name of "neutrality"?
No, not at all.
For example, CDN (N stands for a network) operators may rely on neutral transit providers to connect their CDN to access/retail providers.
But, I certainly mean that CDN operators should not request peering directly to access/retail ISPs merely because they have their own transit, because the transit is not at all neutral.
Masataka Ohta