On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Lor=E1nd Jakab wrote:

...

Since it is Friday, maybe some of peering experts have some time to speculate what this new approach proposed by Comcast might be, as they assert it would represent "a significant shift of Internet = infrastructure." =20 http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=3D202121 = http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/comcast-continues-discussions-with-level-3= ----offers-to-trial-new-solutions.html

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.

If anybody knows for sure, I'd be interested to hear.

How effective have variations on hot potato routing been, historically? I seem to recall Cogent made lots of noises early on about how they could do hot potato routing to encourage peering, but over the years that didn't seem to pan out that way. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

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

On Friday, December 17, 2010 12:51:02 pm George Bonser wrote:

What if instead of the end users paying for Internet service, the content providers did.

I've been following these threads with some interest, and even replying in a couple of places, but now it hits me that a sea change has already occurred, and it's the whole content provider / end user *thing* versus the original 'a host is a host is a host' IP *thing*. But content providers already pay more for their 'service' than the typical asymmetric-towards-the-customer bandwidth user does.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, George Bonser wrote:

What if instead of the end users paying for Internet service, the content providers did. Sort of like broadcast TV where the broadcasters

Um. I'm a content provider. I pay a -lot- for internet service already. That's how my bits and bytes arrive in the tubes for those end users to recieve... -- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:

... Level3 must think that their business would be better off with regulatory oversight of peering, or they would not have taken this action.

And they might be correct in thinking that, if we assume the peering ecosystem is changing i.e. such that traditional "backbones" are being bypassed. Regulatory oversight might have the effect of locking-in today's interconnect regime, which would be ideal for Level(3). Cheers, -Benson

http://fcc.gov/ NOTICE: The FCC website and related electronic filing systems and documents (except for NORS) will be unavailable beginning 6:00 p.m. (EST) Friday, December 17 through 6:00 a.m. (EST) Monday, December 20 for scheduled maintenance. :( On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Steve Schultze <sjs@princeton.edu> wrote:

...

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. [...]

Comcast's latest: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064677

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

On 12/18/2010 12:38 AM, Steve Schultze wrote:

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/comcasts-responds-to-level-3s-fcc-filing.htm...

I very much doubt whether my comment on the blog will survive their moderation process, so here it is: === I am a Comcast residential HSI customer, and have many clients who are business HSI Comcast customers. At the same time, I do maintain servers in my own racks at a datacenter. What is not mentioned in this letter, is that Comcast is already being paid - by me, and by every other customer, for access to the content. Note that Comcast has never said that the Level3/Netflix issue is about users exceeding their allotted bandwidth (currently at about 250GB/month for residential); presumably, were a Comcast user to use 249GB of bandwidth downloading cute pictures of cats, Comcast would have no objection. It appears to be the specific issue that Netflix is a possible competitor to Comcast's TV business, that somehow causes Comcast to decide that there is a problem. Understand this: every Netflix video to be streamed, is specifically requested by a Comcast user, operating under the Comcast-advertised "High Speed Internet" service and presumably within the bandwidth caps that Comcast's own contract allows. That Comcast presumes to have the right to limit, modify, or decide for me which pieces of the Internet I can have access to, removes Comcast's common carrier protections, calls into question the truth of your advertisements for the HSI service, and raises the issue of whether Comcast is dealing in bad faith with each and every Comcast HSI subscriber. ==== --Patrick

If I was Comcast and I got this deal I'd set up scripts to continuously spoof requests to Netflix, I mean hey I get paid for the traffic.. j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

+1 In fact, I feel that at home, I need fast, reliable internet access. I wish I could get that from one provider. Unfortunately, instead, I get fast internet service from Comcast (most of the time) and I get reliable internet service from Raw Bandwidth (DSL, 1.5mbps/768k). Owen (Comcast Business HSI customer) On Dec 17, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:

On 12/18/2010 12:38 AM, Steve Schultze wrote:

...

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/comcasts-responds-to-level-3s-fcc-filing.htm...

I very much doubt whether my comment on the blog will survive their moderation process, so here it is:

=== I am a Comcast residential HSI customer, and have many clients who are business HSI Comcast customers. At the same time, I do maintain servers in my own racks at a datacenter.

What is not mentioned in this letter, is that Comcast is already being paid - by me, and by every other customer, for access to the content.

Note that Comcast has never said that the Level3/Netflix issue is about users exceeding their allotted bandwidth (currently at about 250GB/month for residential); presumably, were a Comcast user to use 249GB of bandwidth downloading cute pictures of cats, Comcast would have no objection.

It appears to be the specific issue that Netflix is a possible competitor to Comcast's TV business, that somehow causes Comcast to decide that there is a problem.

Understand this: every Netflix video to be streamed, is specifically requested by a Comcast user, operating under the Comcast-advertised "High Speed Internet" service and presumably within the bandwidth caps that Comcast's own contract allows.

That Comcast presumes to have the right to limit, modify, or decide for me which pieces of the Internet I can have access to, removes Comcast's common carrier protections, calls into question the truth of your advertisements for the HSI service, and raises the issue of whether Comcast is dealing in bad faith with each and every Comcast HSI subscriber.

====

--Patrick

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> wrote:

advertising MEDs, or by sending inconsistent routes. The fact that the existing Level3/Comcast routing DOESN'T make Level 3 haul all of the bits to the best exit mean it's highly likely that Comcast agreeing to haul the bits was part of their commercial transit agreement, probably in exchange for lower transit prices.

It's worth asking why Comcast did not accept Level3's suggestion that they use MED as a face-saving maneuver, which would have allowed both sides to declare victory. A) Comcast may already have the contractual right to use MED but chooses not to. I agree with you that this is unlikely, not for pure reasons of economics, but because Comcast has some of the same set of motives not to send MED to their transit provider as every other network: prefix aggregation, quality control, and ego. I'll discount geography, marketing, and inability to calculate useful MED values. For argument's sake, let's say they currently can start sending MEDs to Level3 whenever they want. This being the case, Level3's "offer" would have amounted to Level3 telling Comcast upper management that Comcast's engineering people are leaving a huge amount of money on the table, that Level3 is far more cost-effective at running its long-haul network than Comcast, and that they should leave the big networking to the big boys. Comcast management could either react badly to this, or go back to their network folks and ask why they can't be as cost-effective as Level3. B) Comcast may not be able to use MED today. In this case, management may be asking themselves why. An essentially similar scenario can play out; they can either react badly to Level3, or ask their own staff why they are wasting money. C) Comcast doesn't care about MED or the actual cost of doing business. They are boldly moving towards a future that is opposite the one "net neutrality" folks advocate, one that looks like my "Comcast Motive #3." D) Comcast does not think that beginning to use MED (whether currently enabled or not) is enough to satisfy the federal regulators and legislators who are now taking interest in this game of interconnection brinkmanship, involving 17 million households, between a major IP carrier delivering traffic from everyone including a household name like Netflix, and a major cable company that is waiting for government approval to purchase NBC. They feel they must demand something very concrete to demonstrate that they are looking out for consumers' best interest, which means they must make Level3 and/or Netflix look like the bad guy. E) Comcast thinks that a system of accounting for the cost of bearing traffic and dividing it among the involved parties will actually be good for their business, because they can over-build their infrastructure as much as they like, perhaps even improving quality for end-users, and only have to pay for about half of it. The cost of being inefficient, stupid, or committing purchasing or forecasting errors drops by half. This looks very much like my "Comcast Motive #1." E1) Comcast may also know a thing or two about Hollywood Accounting. If you do not understand this reference, simply look it up on Wikipedia. It suffices to say that cost/revenue sharing agreements of this nature can be manipulated in gross ways to the advantage of the party doing the bulk of the book-keeping. F) Management has the same case of ego-driven decision-making that their technical staff have demonstrated. I find this unlikely but still possible. We all know this has been the case at the CEO level in some major interconnection disputes of the past. I believe this outlines the reasonable scenarios for Comcast avoiding a face-saving maneuver with Level3. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts