Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix. Now, just as a matter of principle, I tend to assume that anything VZN says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the Real World... but I did in fact read it. Yup. The money quote: One might wonder why Netflix and its transit providers were the only ones that ran into congestion issues. What it boils down to is this: these other transit and content providers took steps to ensure that there was adequate capacity for their traffic to enter our network. "their traffic". What, Verizon: Netflix is just sending you that traffic uninvited? No: that's *your customers traffic*. You *knew* that there would be asymmetrical amounts of traffic flowing downhill to your customers, *or you wouldn't have provisioned nearly uniformly asymmetrical last mile links to them*. You just lost the bet on how much traffic that would be. That's why they call it gambling: sometimes you lose. You lost. Man up and provision usable peering. That traffic is your responsiblity. If you decided not to charge your customers enough to provision for it, take it out of retained earnings. Just don't try to convince us all that, somehow, that traffic flow isn't your customers traffic, and thus yours. Netflix's only fault is being popular. http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelli... 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
Some good discussion on this at the recent Aspen Institute Net Neutrality panel. http://youtu.be/IEKQmVuqXsg On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix.
Now, just as a matter of principle, I tend to assume that anything VZN says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the Real World... but I did in fact read it.
Yup.
The money quote:
One might wonder why Netflix and its transit providers were the only ones that ran into congestion issues. What it boils down to is this: these other transit and content providers took steps to ensure that there was adequate capacity for their traffic to enter our network.
"their traffic".
What, Verizon: Netflix is just sending you that traffic uninvited?
No: that's *your customers traffic*. You *knew* that there would be asymmetrical amounts of traffic flowing downhill to your customers, *or you wouldn't have provisioned nearly uniformly asymmetrical last mile links to them*.
You just lost the bet on how much traffic that would be.
That's why they call it gambling: sometimes you lose. You lost. Man up and provision usable peering. That traffic is your responsiblity. If you decided not to charge your customers enough to provision for it, take it out of retained earnings.
Just don't try to convince us all that, somehow, that traffic flow isn't your customers traffic, and thus yours. Netflix's only fault is being popular.
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelli...
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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Jay Ashworth wrote:
Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix.
Now, just as a matter of principle, I tend to assume that anything VZN says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the Real World... but I did in fact read it.
Yup.
The money quote:
One might wonder why Netflix and its transit providers were the only ones that ran into congestion issues. What it boils down to is this: these other transit and content providers took steps to ensure that there was adequate capacity for their traffic to enter our network.
"their traffic".
What, Verizon: Netflix is just sending you that traffic uninvited?
No: that's *your customers traffic*. You *knew* that there would be asymmetrical amounts of traffic flowing downhill to your customers, *or you wouldn't have provisioned nearly uniformly asymmetrical last mile links to them*.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm in no way an apologist for Verizon - I've spent a lot of my life in the municipal networking world, and Verizon's lobbying against muncipal fiber builds makes them the enemy in many regards. But, as a FIOS customer, I'm impressed by their levels of service, and as a network engineer and policy wonk it seems only fair to point out the following: Verizon is claiming that delays between Netflix and FIOS customers result from a) the transit network between Netflix and Verizon being congested, and/or b) the connection between the transit network and Verizon is congested. A little experimentation validates this: Traffic from my FIOS home router flows through alter.net and xo.net before hitting netflix. Now alter.net is now owned by Verizon, but when I run traceroutes, I see all the delays starting halfway through XO's network -- so why is nobody pointing a finger at XO? I'll also note that traffic to/from google, and youtube (also google of course) seems to flow FIOS - alter.net - google -- with no delays. So again, why aren't Netflix and Verizon pointing their fingers at XO. This is the classic asymmetric peering situation - which raises a legitimate question of who's responsible for paying for the costs of transit service and interconnections? And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't buying a direct feed into either alter.net or FIOS POPs, and/or making use of a caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis. Personally, I think Netflix is screwing the pooch on this one, and pointing the finger at Verizon as a convenient fall guy. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Randy Bush wrote:
And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis. they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any network
At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote: [snip] At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
Netflix own website indicates otherwise. https://www.netflix.com/openconnect "ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network." -- -JH
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote: [snip] At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... Netflix own website indicates otherwise. https://www.netflix.com/openconnect
"ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network."
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/) -------- At 02:42 PM 7/10/2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Netflix's only fault is being popular.
Alas, as an ISP who cares about his customers, I must say that this is not at all the case. Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free and to build out network connections for which it should be footing the bill. (Netflix told us that, if we wanted to improve streaming performance, we should pay $10,000 per month for a dedicated link, spanning nearly 1,000 miles, to one of its "peering points" -- just to serve it and no other streaming provider.) It then launches misleading PR campaigns against ISPs that dare to object to this behavior. We tell prospective customers that we provide a guaranteed amount of capacity for them to the nearest major Internet hub. However, because Netflix does not have a presence at that hub, has failed to invest in adequate infrastructure, will not build out to our ISP as it has to larger ones such as Comcast, and needlessly wastes network capacity, they may or may not get adequate performance. --Brett Glass ----- -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
[snip]
At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
Netflix own website indicates otherwise. https://www.netflix.com/openconnect
"ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network."
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/)
--------
At 02:42 PM 7/10/2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Netflix's only fault is being popular.
Alas, as an ISP who cares about his customers, I must say that this is not at all the case.
Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching.
I'm sorry. You cannot take that sentence...
It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free
...together with this sentence, without hitting a WTF moment. He rants about Netflix generating huge amounts of traffic and refusing to allow ISPs to cache it; and then goes on to grumble that Netflix is trying to force them to host caching boxes. Does he love caching, or hate caching? I really can't tell. Netflix is offering to provide you the cache boxes *for FREE* so that you can cache the data in your network; isn't that exactly what he wanted, in his first sentence? Why is it that two sentences later, free Netflix cache boxes are suddenly an evil that must be avoided, no matter how much Netflix may try to force them on you? I'm sorry. I think someone forgot to take their coherency meds before writing that paragraph. If you like caching, you should be happy when someone offers to give you caching boxes for FREE. If you don't like caching, you shouldn't bitch about inefficient it is to have traffic that isn't being cached. Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same paragraph is just...dizzying. Matt
Similar but much smaller scale issue that I'm having trying to deliver our content to access networks - small amount of traffic, heavily skewed outbound from our AS but massive amounts of players on these access networks - yet we're forced to pay said access networks to deliver our mutual customers for an optimal experience. So much double dipping. On Thursday, July 10, 2014, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Miles Fidelman < mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
[snip]
At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
Netflix own website indicates otherwise. https://www.netflix.com/openconnect
"ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network."
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/)
--------
At 02:42 PM 7/10/2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Netflix's only fault is being popular.
Alas, as an ISP who cares about his customers, I must say that this is not at all the case.
Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching.
I'm sorry. You cannot take that sentence...
It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free
...together with this sentence, without hitting a WTF moment.
He rants about Netflix generating huge amounts of traffic and refusing to allow ISPs to cache it; and then goes on to grumble that Netflix is trying to force them to host caching boxes. Does he love caching, or hate caching? I really can't tell. Netflix is offering to provide you the cache boxes *for FREE* so that you can cache the data in your network; isn't that exactly what he wanted, in his first sentence? Why is it that two sentences later, free Netflix cache boxes are suddenly an evil that must be avoided, no matter how much Netflix may try to force them on you?
I'm sorry. I think someone forgot to take their coherency meds before writing that paragraph.
If you like caching, you should be happy when someone offers to give you caching boxes for FREE. If you don't like caching, you shouldn't bitch about inefficient it is to have traffic that isn't being cached.
Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same paragraph is just...dizzying.
Matt
-- *Trent Farrell* *Riot Games* *IP Network Engineer* E: tfarrell@riotgames.com | IE: +353 83 446 6809 | US: +1 424 285 9825 Summoner name: Foro
Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same paragraph is just...dizzying.
if we filtered or otherwise prevented conjecturbation, jumping to conclusions based on misuse of tools, hyperbole, misinformation, fud, and downright lying, how would we know the list exploder was working? randy
On 2014-07-10 21:40, Randy Bush wrote:
Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same paragraph is just...dizzying.
if we filtered or otherwise prevented conjecturbation, jumping to conclusions based on misuse of tools, hyperbole, misinformation, fud, and downright lying, how would we know the list exploder was working?
Randy, The ipv6 vs NAT discussions of course!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com>
He rants about Netflix generating huge amounts of traffic and refusing to allow ISPs to cache it; and then goes on to grumble that Netflix is trying to force them to host caching boxes. Does he love caching, or hate caching? I really can't tell. Netflix is offering to provide you the cache boxes *for FREE* so that you can cache the data in your network; isn't that exactly what he wanted, in his first sentence? Why is it that two sentences later, free Netflix cache boxes are suddenly an evil that must be avoided, no matter how much Netflix may try to force them on you?
I'm sorry. I think someone forgot to take their coherency meds before writing that paragraph.
If you like caching, you should be happy when someone offers to give you caching boxes for FREE. If you don't like caching, you shouldn't bitch about inefficient it is to have traffic that isn't being cached.
Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same paragraph is just...dizzying.
No; it's the common result of deciding that you know what the end game ought to be -- which end-game *you want* -- and then trying to fit the rhetoric underneath that result. Cognitive dissonance is a *bitch*. 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
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote: [snip] At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... Netflix own website indicates otherwise. https://www.netflix.com/openconnect
"ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network."
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/)
I've got to say, I'm not overly impressed by his commentary. It's vague and non-specific, and doesn't provide any meat by which an impartial observer could judge the claims. Hell, I'm a partial observer in *favour* of the little guy, and I'm underwhelmed. The thoughts that come to mind are inlined.
--------
Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic
I agree that most movies and TV shows aren't worth watching, but that's a value judgment. "Redundant" perhaps, since everyone who watches the show gets their own stream, but unless your network is entirely multicast-ready, you're not exactly free of blame... Have you attempted to reach out to Netflix to discuss the concerns you have about the inefficiency? What was the response?
and then refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching.
In what ways do they "refuse" to allow ISPs to cache? I can imagine that they don't like caching run by other people, because they can't control how well that caching is run (the charitable interpretation) or they don't get all of the eyeball data when data is cached (the more likely interpretation). Do they refuse to send traffic to your AS if they discover you caching their content? They'd actually be well within their rights to do so (on the principle of "their network, their content, their rules"), that seems implausible.
It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more than adequate.
I'd be interested in seeing more data regarding this assertion. If your links aren't congested, and you're not buying transit that is congested somewhere upstream, the only remaining point of congestion would be somewhere inside Netflix. I'm not saying that isn't what's happening, but assuming that the entire Internet (or everyone who's getting Netflix bits out of the same upstream of Netflix) isn't seeing problems, then the problem inside Netflix seems... optimistic.
It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream Netflix?")
OK, they're popular. Are you advocating for a limit on how large a portion of a market a single company is allowed to service? The bit of this sentence that I find implausible is the idea that customers are sufficiently aware of quality of service issues to ask questions before purchasing.
in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free
These are the OpenConnect caching boxes, I assume? If that's the case, it's incorrect to say that Netflix "refuses to allow [...] caching", simply that they prefer to provide caching their way. As it stands, I don't see the problem with running Netflix cacheboxes instead of your own -- if you *were* running the cache, you would presumably need to pay for hosting anyway (and also machines), so I'm not sure how OpenConnect is worse. If there are reasons why OpenConnect boxes *are* inferior to some other solution (such as if they take up 20 times the power and space of an equivalent caching solution), then those are what need to be talked about.
and to build out network connections for which it should be footing the bill. (Netflix told us that, if we wanted to improve streaming performance, we should pay $10,000 per month for a dedicated link, spanning nearly 1,000 miles, to one of its "peering points" -- just to serve it and no other streaming provider.)
Is this simply because there is no "common Internet exchange" closer to Laramie, Wyoming? If so, then all I can say is that it sucks to be running a service in a remote part of the world, but you can hardly blame Netflix for that.
We tell prospective customers that we provide a guaranteed amount of capacity for them to the nearest major Internet hub.
I'd be interested to see a more detailed description of this situation -- where Lariat *does* have interconnection presence, and how "major" that "major Internet hub" is. If Netflix is, indeed, ignoring a major interconnect point, then it should be pretty easy to make that case and call "bullshit" on Netflix's claims. As it stands, though, there's not enough information to make any substantive assertion.
will not build out to our ISP as it has to larger ones such as Comcast
Is there a similar compelling commercial benefit for Netflix to build out to Laramie Internet Access and Telecommunications as there is to Comcast? If not, it would be extremely foolish (not to mentin potentially criminal) for Netflix to spend money on that. They're a for-profit company, they should only spend money on things that will make them even more money. I feel for Brett, and everyone else, running a small shop and getting the shaft from the big kids. I've been there, and it's no fun. The answer, though, is to get specific with facts and figures, and *prove* that the claims of Netflix are bullshit, rather than continue with vague assertions. They're better at the "vague assertions" game than you are. - Matt -- A woman in liquor production / Owns a still of exquisite construction. The alcohol boils / Through magnetic coils. She says that it's "proof by induction." -- http://limerickdb.com/?34
in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free
These are the OpenConnect caching boxes, I assume? If that's the case, it's incorrect to say that Netflix "refuses to allow [...] caching", simply that they prefer to provide caching their way. As it stands, I don't see the problem with running Netflix cacheboxes instead of your own -- if you *were* running the cache, you would presumably need to pay for hosting anyway (and also machines), so I'm not sure how OpenConnect is worse. If there are reasons why OpenConnect boxes *are* inferior to some other solution (such as if they take up 20 times the power and space of an equivalent caching solution), then those are what need to be talked about.
One could make a somewhat valid argument that the “OpenConnect” caches are limited to caching Netflix and thus not very “open” whereas a cache that I was hosting for myself could cache a variety of content sources and not just Netflix. Would it really be plausible for a small ISP to host caching clusters for every streaming content supplier out there? Don’t get me wrong, I think that the access networks are the ones that are failing their customers in this scenario over all, but I can see this one valid aspect to the argument above. Owen
On Jul 11, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Would it really be plausible for a small ISP to host caching clusters for every streaming content supplier out there?
No, but if you have typical internet user streaming uptake, Netflix and Akamai and then... Short list, most of the demand. If you can't handle 2-3 then you have a scale problem. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
Would it really be plausible for a small ISP to host caching clusters for every streaming content supplier out there?
No, it wouldn't. But it also wouldn't be necessary. Netflix is the 900 pound gorilla in that market, and -- if nothing else -- is probably more constrained by rightsholders about how it's caching is done technically, and how secure it is... 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
On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote:
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/)
While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two months ago: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon... As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best. Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it. I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. Jima
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
[...] I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop. There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list. If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work. Matt
Matt, That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
[...] I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop.
There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list.
If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work.
Matt
Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. Matt On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
[...] I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop.
There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list.
If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work.
Matt
Matt, They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential and business customers. They belong to various service provider associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, nor would they class themselves that way. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs.
Matt On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
[...] I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop.
There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list.
If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work.
Matt
I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists. Matt On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential and business customers. They belong to various service provider associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, nor would they class themselves that way.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs.
Matt On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
[...] I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop.
There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list.
If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work.
Matt
Matt, No one said anything of the sort and now you're trying to redirect. You said, "There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list." This is false, that's all I said nothing less and nothing more. I never made any statement about this list nor do you hear very many of the folks who work at those companies on here. My company has several ASNs for both historical and operational reasons, all I am pointing out is that you're taking a more limited view of what an ISP is in an eyeball network context and that view is inaccurate. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists.
Matt On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential and business customers. They belong to various service provider associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, nor would they class themselves that way.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs.
Matt On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
[...] I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop.
There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list.
If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work.
Matt
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
No one said anything of the sort and now you're trying to redirect. You said, "There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list." This is false, that's all I said nothing less and nothing more.
I never made any statement about this list nor do you hear very many of the folks who work at those companies on here. My company has several ASNs for both historical and operational reasons, all I am pointing out is that you're taking a more limited view of what an ISP is in an eyeball network context and that view is inaccurate.
Scott, I think the problem here is one of terminology, then. You seem to be discussing "ISP" as a business model; I'm talking about "ISP" as a network entity. Regardless of your business model, from the network perspective, if you do not have an AS number, you don't exist as a separate entity. So, I will grant you that you can print business cards that list you as an ISP without having an AS number. But from the perspective of the network, you don't exist as a separate entity; the only "ISP" involved in routing those packets from the perspective of the BGP-speaking core of the internet is your upstream. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic, as it's all just a matter of how we define what an ISP is. Thanks! Matt
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists.
Matt On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential and business customers. They belong to various service provider associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, nor would they class themselves that way.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs.
Matt On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach < mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
> [...] > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > Jima > > I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop.
There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list.
If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work.
Matt
Here we go down the rabbit hole again. This is not difficult. An Internet Service Provider is an entity that provides Internet connectivity to its customers for some consideration. If you are looking for a legal definition of an ISP you are not going to find (a satisfactory) one. The FCC does have specific rules that define carriers such as ILEC, CLEC, RLEC, and those have definitions. ISP is really a term that describes a line of business. There is no engineering definition of an ISP that is defined by any regulatory body that I am aware of. No, you don't need an AS number to be an ISP (or your own address space). In my early Internet days I was the ISP who sold service to a cable tv company who in turn sold internet service to their customers. I was the ISP to the cable company and they were the ISP to their customers. If you send money to someone to provide you with internet service, they are an ISP. Does not matter who manages the infrastructure or if their entire network was leased out. You can get into all the semantics about who is a "real ISP" but in the view of the public and most regulators, the ISP is the guy selling Internet access and that's it. Steven Naslund Chicago IL -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 4:40 PM To: Scott Helms Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
No one said anything of the sort and now you're trying to redirect. You said, "There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list." This is false, that's all I said nothing less and nothing more.
I never made any statement about this list nor do you hear very many of the folks who work at those companies on here. My company has several ASNs for both historical and operational reasons, all I am pointing out is that you're taking a more limited view of what an ISP is in an eyeball network context and that view is inaccurate.
Scott, I think the problem here is one of terminology, then. You seem to be discussing "ISP" as a business model; I'm talking about "ISP" as a network entity. Regardless of your business model, from the network perspective, if you do not have an AS number, you don't exist as a separate entity. So, I will grant you that you can print business cards that list you as an ISP without having an AS number. But from the perspective of the network, you don't exist as a separate entity; the only "ISP" involved in routing those packets from the perspective of the BGP-speaking core of the internet is your upstream. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic, as it's all just a matter of how we define what an ISP is. Thanks! Matt
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists.
Matt On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential and business customers. They belong to various service provider associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, nor would they class themselves that way.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs.
Matt On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Matt,
That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach < mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
> [...] > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up > for a pipe > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > Jima > > I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop.
There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list.
If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work.
Matt
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
Here we go down the rabbit hole again. This is not difficult. An Internet Service Provider is an entity that provides Internet connectivity to its customers for some consideration.
If you are looking for a legal definition of an ISP you are not going to find (a >satisfactory) one. The FCC does have specific rules that define carriers such as ILEC, CLEC, RLEC, and those have definitions. ISP is really a term that describes a line of business. There is no engineering definition of an ISP that is defined by any regulatory body that I am aware of.
Correct. "ISP" is not a specific technology or business. It is based on what is being sold. You can be selling customers a dial-up service where your customers are presented with a shell prompt over the dial-in terminal connected to a hosted Unix server you are renting with connectivity from a 56K leased line, and you are still an ISP. By common definitions, by the way, Youtube has been referred to as an ISP. An ISP is a company that generates revenue by providing connectivity to internet resources (in this case: streaming video). Usually ISP is used to refer to providers that are selling complete internet connectivity, however, not organizations that merely run one website providing entertainment or e-commerce. You can subdivide the idea of ISP into various related ideas such as "Online Service Provider", "Network Service Provider", "Broadband Service Provider", "E-mail service provider", "Mobile Data Provider", etc Which are more informative, but generally equally vague and informal. -- -JH
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
Here we go down the rabbit hole again. This is not difficult. An Internet Service Provider is an entity that provides Internet connectivity to its customers for some consideration.
If you are looking for a legal definition of an ISP you are not going to find (a >satisfactory) one. The FCC does have specific rules that define carriers such as ILEC, CLEC, RLEC, and those have definitions. ISP is really a term that describes a line of business. There is no engineering definition of an ISP that is defined by any regulatory body that I am aware of.
Correct. "ISP" is not a specific technology or business. It is based on what is being sold. You can be selling customers a dial-up service where your customers are presented with a shell prompt over the dial-in terminal connected to a hosted Unix server you are renting with connectivity from a 56K leased line, and you are still an ISP.
By common definitions, by the way, Youtube has been referred to as an ISP. An ISP is a company that generates revenue by providing connectivity to internet resources (in this case: streaming video).
Usually ISP is used to refer to providers that are selling complete internet connectivity, however, not organizations that merely run one website providing entertainment or e-commerce.
You can subdivide the idea of ISP into various related ideas such as "Online Service Provider", "Network Service Provider", "Broadband Service Provider", "E-mail service provider", "Mobile Data Provider", etc
Which are more informative, but generally equally vague and informal.
-- -JH
*sigh* Fine, fine, y'all are super-attached to your business-y definitions of ISP. I'll clarify my earlier point to eliminate this confusion. To the core of the internet, if you do not have an AS number, you do not exist. If your business does not have an AS number *as far as the BGP speaking core of the internet is concerned, there is no representation for your entity, no matter what acronym you attach to it.* There. Confusion over. You can call yourself an ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate entity from your upstream provider from the network perspective. Matt
Matthew Petach wrote:
*sigh*
Fine, fine, y'all are super-attached to your business-y definitions of ISP.
I'll clarify my earlier point to eliminate this confusion.
To the core of the internet, if you do not have an AS number, you do not exist. If your business does not have an AS number *as far as the BGP speaking core of the internet is concerned, there is no representation for your entity, no matter what acronym you attach to it.*
There. Confusion over. You can call yourself an ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate entity from your upstream provider from the network perspective.
For a lot of folks, "business-y definitions" actually matter. People write checks and send bills, to business entities, not AS numbers. Business entities get sued, taxed, and regulated - not AS numbers. And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP.
yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite well-known history? or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet. randy
And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite well-known history? or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant achievement. randy
On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:18 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite well-known history? or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant achievement.
randy
Not to take away from Barry, but around that same time, some of us left coasts were also helping to build Netcom as a viable commercial entity providing shell and later PPP and dedicated line access (DS0, T1). Owen
On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:18 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite well-known history? or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant achievement.
randy
Not to take away from Barry, but around that same time, some of us left coasts were also helping to build Netcom as a viable commercial entity providing shell and later PPP and dedicated line access (DS0, T1).
Owen
...and CRL, and shortly after Netcom came Scruznet, and ... (Still giggling at how many times CRL got the intersection of Market/Geary/Kearny dug up in the early 90s bringing fiber in...). George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On July 11, 2014 at 22:31 owen@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
Not to take away from Barry, but around that same time, some of us left coasts were also helping to build Netcom as a viable commercial entity providing shell and later PPP and dedicated line access (DS0, T1).
That was several months later, Rieger et al were well aware of The World, and Panix for that matter which came after World but before Netcom. They were springing up, yes, but first is first, vague handwaves of "around that same time" is irrelevant. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
What is generally claimed is that I was the first to put the general public on the internet. Unix shell account, $20, connected machine, have at it. I got enough crap at the time for doing this that it must have been significant! ``Wot??? You can't put the GENERAL PUBLIC on the internet? What are you CRAZY??? You're illegally reselling federal property!!! (etc)'' The leap was that it was around $20 to ANYONE with a modem and a terminal (yes we had customers who actually used VT100s) or PC rather than thousands per month for a 9.6KB or 56KB leased line, router, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World.std.com On July 12, 2014 at 12:18 randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite well-known history? or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant achievement.
randy
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Hi Randy, Randy Bush wrote:
And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite well-known history?
umm what history am I re-writing? http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ - is as good a source as any for Internet history, which says this under 1990 "The World comes on-line (world.std.com), becoming the first commercial provider of Internet dial-up access says" ok - one can quibble 1989 (what Barry states on World's home page) PSInet was very late 1989, so there was that, I believe UUnet was 1990 What I did forget was NEARnet - which embarrasses me, since I was at BBN at the time. But, at first, NEARnet limited access to the NSFnet backbone to it's non-commercial customers (at least that was the policy - I'm not sure that filtering was ever really turned on in the gateways). I don't recall whether CSnet had any commercial members.
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
well now we get to rehash to very old definitional distinction between "Internet Access Provider" and "Internet Service Provider" and yes, if a service provider takes money, to provide access to the Internet in some way, shape, manner, or form, yes - that's providing Internet "access" or "service" - and as soon as dial-up included PPP, then that's a non-issue
btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant achievement.
The other service Barry provided was pushing the whole issue of commercial access to the backbone. That was kind of epic. And yes, they're still going strong. I still maintain an account - it's my backup for the rare case that I need a separate site for diagnosing issues with our cluster. Cheers, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On July 12, 2014 at 07:16 mfidelman@meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) wrote:
umm what history am I re-writing? http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ - is as good a source as any for Internet history, which says this under 1990 "The World comes on-line (world.std.com), becoming the first commercial provider of Internet dial-up access says" ok - one can quibble 1989 (what Barry states on World's home page)
PSInet was very late 1989, so there was that, I believe UUnet was 1990
I have ads and price schedules from October 1989 for public access internet. I could probably even dig up billing data from October or November. We actually started by offering shell and uucp access in August 1989 and then became a UUNET POP which put us directly on the internet in October. There was a T1 in our offices which back then was a pretty big deal! It was shared with other UUNET customers. We already had hundreds of customers using email etc when we became 192.74.137.*. UUNET and PSI internet wholesale were nearly simultaneous, I don't know the exact dates but early summer 1989 for internet sales. UUNET was already in the uucp biz for a year or two before that, we were a UUNET uucp customer when we started (and some other nodes like Encore, BU, etc.) Another reference is RFC2235 (I don't know why they used 1990 but it was written in 1997 and by then it didn't seem worth correcting) but there are a bunch of articles, I have most of them linked on my home page, http://www.TheWorld.com/~bzs
What I did forget was NEARnet - which embarrasses me, since I was at BBN at the time. But, at first, NEARnet limited access to the NSFnet backbone to it's non-commercial customers (at least that was the policy - I'm not sure that filtering was ever really turned on in the gateways). I don't recall whether CSnet had any commercial members.
Apple was a CSNET 56k customer.
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
well now we get to rehash to very old definitional distinction between "Internet Access Provider" and "Internet Service Provider"
and yes, if a service provider takes money, to provide access to the Internet in some way, shape, manner, or form, yes - that's providing Internet "access" or "service" - and as soon as dial-up included PPP, then that's a non-issue
btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant achievement.
The other service Barry provided was pushing the whole issue of commercial access to the backbone. That was kind of epic.
I agree, that's the real point. As I said, what I did caused a furor.
And yes, they're still going strong. I still maintain an account - it's my backup for the rare case that I need a separate site for diagnosing issues with our cluster.
Cheers,
Miles
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On 7/12/2014 3:43 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
I don't recall whether CSnet had any commercial members.
Apple was a CSNET 56k customer.
As I recall, Schlumberger (http://www.slb.com/, a research site of theirs on the west coast) was one of the earliest CSNet member. So was HP. I put Schlumberger online circa 1981 or 1982. I believe they were among the first 5-10 sites I brought up. At that stage, it was only email relaying, of course. Packet services were later. Also, although CSNet started with NSF money, it was required to become self-funded within 5 years. Albeit on a non-profit financial model, I'd claim that that made it, essentially, a commercial access service. If one allows 'commercial' ISP to cover independent operations that happened not to have a profit-oriented motive, I suspect the first service to quality would be The Little Garden, operated as a direct consortium, rather than having third-party operations, as CSNet did. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP.
yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite well-known history?
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were "on the internet"? The shell machines were connected to the internet. You could FTP, email, telnet, etc etc etc. Back in 1989 that was "on the internet". Heck, in 2014 it means on the internet. Right this minute I'm in a shell on a Linux machine connected to the internet and I'm pretty sure I have access to the internet. Consider the difference if you unplug that shell machine from the internet. Internet Service Provider. You got internet services. What hair are you trying to split? That you were using a shared address? Are people behind a NAT wall not on the internet? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:32 -0400, Barry Shein said:
What hair are you trying to split? That you were using a shared address? Are people behind a NAT wall not on the internet?
I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine that a user on The World was more "on the internet" than your average person stuck behind a NAT. And the most appropriate description of those poor souls who are double or triple NATTed is "on drugs"....
On 7/13/14, 5:30 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine that a user on The World was more "on the internet" than your average person stuck behind a NAT. And the most appropriate description of those poor souls who are double or triple NATTed is "on drugs"....
You know I have a name for this now: (Keith) Moore's Law is that every conversation will eventually degenerate into a NAT debate. Eliot ps: with apologies to Keith.
On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were "on the internet"?
An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: To Be "On" the Internet March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were "on the internet"?
An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize:
To Be "On" the Internet
March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775
Oh, *sure* Dave; write your own RFC just so you can refer to it in an argument, 19 years later... 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
On 7/14/2014 8:31 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Oh, *sure* Dave; write your own RFC just so you can refer to it in an argument, 19 years later...
Well, after all, one does need to /earn/ the title of visionary... However, you've provided nice closure to some childhood trauma: I've no math skills, while my brother who is 5 years my senior has an excess of them. When I was quite young -- maybe 4? -- he taught me to participate in a parlor trick where I would demonstrate astonishing arithmetic skills. He would feed me a series of numbers and operations (4 + 3 * 2 - 2 +...) and I'd say the final answer and it was always correct. The gimmick was that by pre-arrangement he said he would say the final answer early on, in a particular place in the sequence, and then he'd make the computation wander around until it came back to that number. Friends and family were amazed. Except our mother, who knew I wasn't that bright. I guess now you've discerned that she was wrong. On 7/14/2014 9:52 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
How about "Vicarious Access":
No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet.
Might be time to revise the RFC... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
As far as the LARIATs of this world go, wouldn't the optimum CDN solution be satellite multicast caching? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 July 14, 2014 at 08:17 dhc2@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were "on the internet"?
An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize:
To Be "On" the Internet
March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775
How about "Vicarious Access": No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On 14July2014Monday, at 9:52, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 dhc2@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were "on the internet"?
An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize:
To Be "On" the Internet
March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775
How about "Vicarious Access":
No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet.
-- -Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Therein lies the fallacy of the “air-gap” … sometimes 3meters is not wide enough. /bill
On Jul 14, 2014, at 08:17 , Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet.
You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were "on the internet"?
An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize:
To Be "On" the Internet
March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet". Owen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart. 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
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart.
Note that the sentence is incomplete and as soon as you put something after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you put at the right hand side. Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity and the definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly variable and more subjective than you may realize. What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of them is made up of a collection of independently owned and operated networks that happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying extents and happen to have agreed to a common protocol and participate in some of the same management schemes for things like namespace collision avoidance and address distribution. Owen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart.
Note that the sentence is incomplete
It actually isn't, no. The quoted segment is, as noted, a *relationship*; ie: a function applied to a domain of IP addresses to produce a range of other IP addresses; it's a *function*, and the closure applies it to produce a result.
and as soon as you put something after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you put at the right hand side.
Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity and the definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly variable and more subjective than you may realize.
Not really.
What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of them is made up of a collection of independently owned and operated networks that happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying extents and happen to have agreed to a common protocol and participate in some of the same management schemes for things like namespace collision avoidance and address distribution.
Hence "transitive". It's not really an accident that "transit" comes from the same root. "The Internet" for all the purposes we generally use it here is composed of all the machines with publicly routable IP addresses between which you can move packets, regardless of what they're hooked to, or who they pay; that was the point Seth made in a much more mathematical-sounding way in his oft-quoted statement. 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
On Jul 18, 2014, at 16:12 , Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart.
Note that the sentence is incomplete
It actually isn't, no.
The quoted segment is, as noted, a *relationship*; ie: a function applied to a domain of IP addresses to produce a range of other IP addresses; it's a *function*, and the closure applies it to produce a result.
and as soon as you put something after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you put at the right hand side.
Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity and the definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly variable and more subjective than you may realize.
Not really.
What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of them is made up of a collection of independently owned and operated networks that happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying extents and happen to have agreed to a common protocol and participate in some of the same management schemes for things like namespace collision avoidance and address distribution.
Hence "transitive". It's not really an accident that "transit" comes from the same root.
"The Internet" for all the purposes we generally use it here is composed of all the machines with publicly routable IP addresses between which you can move packets, regardless of what they're hooked to, or who they pay; that was the point Seth made in a much more mathematical-sounding way in his oft-quoted statement.
And my point is that when you look at it in detail, there's no such thing. There are many hosts which have public IP addresses which can reach different subsets of "the internet" than other hosts which also have public IP addresses and can talk to each other. It is very easy to choose a selection of hosts and be unable to solve that function with a single solution set for the entire set of hosts, yet by any vernacular definition of "the internet", all of the hosts in question would be "on the internet". That's my point. The devil is in the details, but in reality, the internet is much more precarious, variable, and generally a convenient term of art for something that mostly otherwise defies description. In fact, I've always loved the description of "You can tell how much someone understands the detailed workings of the internet by what amazes them." Almost no detailed knowledge: Amazed by everything one can do. Some detailed knowledge: Amazed by all the different places one can reach and how much information is available. Near complete knowledge: Amazed that it works at all. Owen
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:45:29 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitiv e, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart.
Note that the sentence is incomplete and as soon as you put something after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you put at the right hand side.
Which is why Jay said "closure" - that means (basically) "across *all* meaningful right hand sides, plus nay *new* ones that pop up as previously undiscovered left hand sides along the way. And yes, this definition *does* mean that if you find a reachable webserver in a corporate DMZ, and that webserver can reach machines that are behind the corporate firewall, those supposedly firewalled machines are "on the internet" as well. Which is what your security geek was trying to explain to you :)
On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart.
I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons. Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails. Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class. That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it. — Mike
When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-` On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote:
On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet". "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart. I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y
In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.
Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.
Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.
That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.
— Mike
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:47:34PM +0900, Paul S. wrote:
On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote:
On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'"
-- Seth Breidbart.
I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y
In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.
Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.
Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.
That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.
When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-`
We probably shouldn't talk about it in public. - Matt "A discrete math course, on the other hand..."
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Michael Conlen <mike@conlen.org> wrote:
On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart.
I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y
In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.
One might argue, however, that Seth's definition would hold for the original, open, end-to-end connectivity model of the internet; and that by extension, what many people think of as being on the internet, huddling behind their NATs and their firewalls, is not really truly on the internet. Yes, I realize that's a much narrower definition, and most people would argue against it; but it does rather elegantly frame "The Internet" as the set of fully-connected, unshielded IP connected hosts.
Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.
Not quite; the closure *does* create an equivalence class--it's just not the one you were expecting it to be. That is, the fully-connected internet equivalence class of Seth's definition is smaller than what you'd like to consider "The Internet" to be, but it is a valid equivalence class.
Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.
That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.
And one might argue that it's a more liberal interpretation of "The Internet" than what Seth had intended. As a though exercise...imagine a botnet owner that used encrypted payloads in ICMP packets for the command-and-control messages for her botnet army; no 'ack' is required, the messages simply need to make it from the control node to the zombies. She pops up a control node using unallocated, unannounced IP space; the host sends out control messages, never expecting to get responses, as the IP address it's using has no corresponding route in the global routing table. Is that control host part of "The Internet?" Seth's definition makes it clear that control host, spewing out its encrypted ICMP control messages in a one-way stream, is *not* part of "The Internet." Do we concur? Or is there some notion of that control host still being somehow part of "The Internet" because it's able to send evil nasty icky packets at the rest of the better-behaved Internet, even if we can't respond in any way? I find myself leaning towards Seth's definition, and supporting the idea that even though that host is sending a stream of IP traffic at my network, it's not part of "The Internet"--even though that conflicts with what my security team would probably say ("if it can attack me with IP datagrams, it's part of the internet."). It's actually a deceptively tough question to wrestle with.
— Mike
Thanks! Matt
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
Hi Owen, Your body consists of many millions of distinct biological entities (cells) operating cooperatively and competitively in many interesting ways all based on the same core "code," but I have to think you'd take offense if I said there was no such thing as "Owen Delong." Poor Internet can't get no respect... Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual central control (one brain). Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it. There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my point isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no particular one you can point to and call it "THE internet". Owen On Jul 18, 2014, at 16:28 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
Hi Owen,
Your body consists of many millions of distinct biological entities (cells) operating cooperatively and competitively in many interesting ways all based on the same core "code," but I have to think you'd take offense if I said there was no such thing as "Owen Delong."
Poor Internet can't get no respect...
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual central control (one brain).
Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes *wide* use of distributed processing.
Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it.
All of them, then, I guess.
There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my point isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no particular one you can point to and call it "THE internet".
I can point to any jack that is part of it, and say it's "The Internet" (note, please, capitalization) and be describing it accurately. This is not an issue of engineering; it's one of nomenclature and taxonomy. 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
On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual central control (one brain).
Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes *wide* use of distributed processing.
Yes.
Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it.
All of them, then, I guess.
This is why most of us cannot stop cancer by willing the cells to stop dividing.
There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my point isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no particular one you can point to and call it "THE internet".
I can point to any jack that is part of it, and say it's "The Internet" (note, please, capitalization) and be describing it accurately.
This is not an issue of engineering; it's one of nomenclature and taxonomy.
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
On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual central control (one brain). Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes *wide* use of distributed processing.
Yes.
Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it. All of them, then, I guess.
This is why most of us cannot stop cancer by willing the cells to stop dividing. Also look at the immune "system"; there is no central control at all, and precious little central "advice" (pituitary and adrenal, and a few others). (yes, some disciplines related to meditation can affect the adrenal part of that somewhat...) Most of the immune system is cells at war with each other, and only kept in check with a major many-way balancing act (and you thought BGP was complicated!!). (and there are *plenty* of diseases that are expressions of imbalances of that war, or (mostly external) agents that induce what amounts to a DDOS.)) (even
On 07/18/2014 10:43 PM, Ca By wrote: the itch from a mosquito bite, or poison ivy fall in that category; at least they are normally self-limiting.) (and some of these DDOS-like things can be fatal like type-1 diabetes used to be (and external insulin is just a crutch, not a cure) (lupus and MS also, both currently not particularly treatable; there are many others). To get back to the Verizon thing, they are not attacking netflix as such, the attacks are downstream on that path and the restrictions on level3 (among others) affect my getting to my own colo servers from fios, for example. (added 30msec and 5-10% packet loss to the path delay regularly at 8am every day and until last week this lasted till mid-evening (smokeping can be very enlightening)). Things got better late last week; hope it will last. Call it collateral damage, but it is Verizon doing it very much on purpose. And at least level3 finally called them on it; hope that ends up with some positive effect in the long run. -- Pete
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:22:52 -0700, Matthew Petach said:
ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate entity from your upstream provider from the network perspective.
If there's a problem, you're welcome to insist on calling his upstream's NOC and listen to them say that address is properly SWIP'ed to a customer until they're blue in the face because you claim the customer doesn't exist. The rest of us will go ahead and call the customer about the errant host on their network.
On 2014-07-12 09:33, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:22:52 -0700, Matthew Petach said:
ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate entity from your upstream provider from the network perspective.
If there's a problem, you're welcome to insist on calling his upstream's NOC and listen to them say that address is properly SWIP'ed to a customer until they're blue in the face because you claim the customer doesn't exist.
Except when, as in the original example, it's not. Jima
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com>
To the core of the internet, if you do not have an AS number, you do not exist. If your business does not have an AS number *as far as the BGP speaking core of the internet is concerned, there is no representation for your entity, no matter what acronym you attach to it.*
There. Confusion over. You can call yourself an ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate entity from your upstream provider from the network perspective.
From the viewpoint of the context of this thread... why was that
Ok. Correct. pertinent again? :-) 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
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com>
To the core of the internet, if you do not have an AS number, you do not exist. If your business does not have an AS number *as far as the BGP speaking core of the internet is concerned, there is no representation for your entity, no matter what acronym you attach to it.*
There. Confusion over. You can call yourself an ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate entity from your upstream provider from the network perspective.
Ok. Correct.
From the viewpoint of the context of this thread... why was that pertinent again? :-)
I totally don't remember. I just hit a stubborn streak. Now we're so far off in the weeds, I can't even see where we started from. ^_^;; Matt
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
Now we're
so far off in the weeds, I can't even see where we started from. ^_^;;
What I'd like to know is 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. 2 )are there, should there, be different peering standards for each, and 3) if so some kind of functional if not structural separation 4) by regulation? 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Joly MacFie wrote:
Now we're
so far off in the weeds, I can't even see where we started from. ^_^;;
What I'd like to know is
1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. 2 )are there, should there, be different peering standards for each, and 3) if so some kind of functional if not structural separation 4) by regulation?
Ditto. These questions really get to the nub of the current issues! Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
I've only been 1/2 paying attention, did I miss the <sarcasm> tag are are people really looking for those answers. -jim Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. Original Message From: Miles Fidelman Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:11 PM Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Joly MacFie wrote:
Now we're
so far off in the weeds, I can't even see where we started from. ^_^;;
What I'd like to know is
1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. 2 )are there, should there, be different peering standards for each, and 3) if so some kind of functional if not structural separation 4) by regulation?
Ditto. These questions really get to the nub of the current issues! Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Personally, I'm not being sarcastic at all. Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. But.. there's rulemaking going on at the FCC - driven by all the talk about "network neutrality" and "Internet Fast Lanes" -- that is likely to have real impacts on all of us. Most of what passes for "discussion" is posturing by various big players, interest groups, and pundits. (To an earlier comment - Verizon is not a small ISP; but neither is Netflix a small business.) These are real questions, that merit serious examination - not to mention serious input to the current FCC rulemaking from knowledgeable folks. Just one man's opinion, of course. Miles Fidelman deleskie@gmail.com wrote:
I've only been 1/2 paying attention, did I miss the <sarcasm> tag are are people really looking for those answers.
-jim
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. Original Message From: Miles Fidelman Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:11 PM Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Joly MacFie wrote:
Now we're
so far off in the weeds, I can't even see where we started from. ^_^;;
What I'd like to know is
1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. 2 )are there, should there, be different peering standards for each, and 3) if so some kind of functional if not structural separation 4) by regulation?
Ditto. These questions really get to the nub of the current issues!
Miles Fidelman
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Right now, peering agreements are the wild west.
no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on doughnut, not the hole. randy
Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. but then, you are not an operator so no surprise.
to be clearer. by count, the vast majority of peering is done by small ops informally. this represents a small fraction of the traffic. you don't see the peering agreements because there are no formal ones. and i guess it looks chaotic from the outside. it looks pretty normal from the inside. e.g., i have a research rack connected to the six, tell most folk there that i have neither eyeballs nor eye candy, but peer informally with folk such as r&e networks where i need to move data. oh, and the rack peers informally with my $dayjob, which might be the only informal peering which $dayjob does. makes sense from the inside, looks strange from the outside. you have to know my business model for it to make sense. the big kids peer very formally, which represents the majority of the traffic, and often does not happen at exchanges. like many bi-lateral business to business deals in the commercial world, the details are confidential. to you, it may look like the wild west. to the players, it's just business. randy
Randy Bush wrote:
Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. to be clearer.
by count, the vast majority of peering is done by small ops informally. this represents a small fraction of the traffic. you don't see the peering agreements because there are no formal ones. and i guess it looks chaotic from the outside. it looks pretty normal from the inside.
e.g., i have a research rack connected to the six, tell most folk there that i have neither eyeballs nor eye candy, but peer informally with folk such as r&e networks where i need to move data. oh, and the rack peers informally with my $dayjob, which might be the only informal peering which $dayjob does. makes sense from the inside, looks strange from the outside. you have to know my business model for it to make sense.
the big kids peer very formally, which represents the majority of the traffic, and often does not happen at exchanges. like many bi-lateral business to business deals in the commercial world, the details are confidential. to you, it may look like the wild west. to the players, it's just business.
Exactly - all of this is informal, unregulated, done on a deal-by-deal basis - and the big guys fight things out with big guns. How is this not the wild west? Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Randy Bush wrote:
Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. but then, you are not an operator so no surprise.
what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on doughnut, not the hole.
Sure looks like a wild west range war to me. And let's not forget that Netflix is not some tiny company anymore - 1/3 of Internet traffic or some such, 46million members, $1billion Q1 income. Yeah - big guys fighting, no established law or regulation (well, there was, but the Supreme Court overturned it) - looks like a range war to me. Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. but then, you are not an operator so no surprise.
what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on doughnut, not the hole.
Sure looks like a wild west range war to me. And let's not forget that Netflix is not some tiny company anymore - 1/3 of Internet traffic or some such, 46million members, $1billion Q1 income. Yeah - big guys fighting, no established law or regulation (well, there was, but the Supreme Court overturned it) - looks like a range war to me.
ahhh. so not government regulated == wild west got it randy
Randy Bush wrote:
Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. but then, you are not an operator so no surprise.
what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on doughnut, not the hole. Sure looks like a wild west range war to me. And let's not forget that Netflix is not some tiny company anymore - 1/3 of Internet traffic or some such, 46million members, $1billion Q1 income. Yeah - big guys fighting, no established law or regulation (well, there was, but the Supreme Court overturned it) - looks like a range war to me. ahhh. so
not government regulated == wild west
got it
randy
lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
ahhh. so not government regulated == wild west lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west
at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet, usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation. and, if we are really lucky, maybe geoff will use his deep knowledge of history beyond the internet to tell us the real story of the so called wild west, which was likely more organized than one would think. randy
Randy Bush wrote:
ahhh. so not government regulated == wild west lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet, usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation.
yeah John, where are you (John and I sat a few doors from each other at one point, way back)
and, if we are really lucky, maybe geoff will use his deep knowledge of history beyond the internet to tell us the real story of the so called wild west, which was likely more organized than one would think.
really? can you say Cliven Bundy? :-) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Jul 13, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
ahhh. so not government regulated == wild west lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet, usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation.
yeah John, where are you (John and I sat a few doors from each other at one point, way back)
Oh joy, a network neutrality discussion, and it's taking place 1) on nanog, 2) over the weekend, and 3) when I no longer run an ISP or a data-center/content-source... It took some doing, but I was able to quell my urge to respond immediately (being at the beach with family likely helped enormously... :-) So the right answer to this entire mess would have been to provide competitive cost- based access to the underlying facilities (copper, coax, fiber) including associated colocation and power services, and consider that justified given the long regulated history that made the establishment of the cable plants and rights-of-way possible. (Note - we actually had this equal-facility-access framework in the US at one point, but it was later "fixed" by a determination that effective competition could be provided among service providers of different technologies (e.g. FTTH, cable, dish) and that nothing more was needed. The result was the vertical integration that we often see today - from access loop through Internet service and up to and including content in many cases. Attempting to now address this problem (of equitable access to Internet users) via regulation of interconnection arrangements may not be very productive in the end; it is a palliative measure that has potential for great complexity - similar to having every gated community in the country file paperwork describing their programs for handling of local delivery and pizza companies, and/or any fees for priority access along the community roads, and all of this despite most of the community's insistence that third-party vehicles should just be allowed to pass through. There generally should be a point of interconnection which allows for settlement- free handoff of traffic to local customers; the current industry-based "peering model" has done a reasonable job of finding such accommodations when they can be achieved, even if it does so with only nominal outside visibility. I understand the desire for more consistency and public visibility into such industry agreements, but would have greatly preferred efforts in that area as a prerequisite step (which would allow for actual data and analysis to be introduced in the discussion) before any further measures such as per-agreement regulatory review or formalization of tiered priority mechanisms... Alas, that sort of structured approach is not how government generally works, so we're going to go from standstill to "the complete solution" in one large leap and have to hope it works out for the best. /John Disclaimer: My views alone - I would appreciate not having my packets molested if you should happen to disagree with them... ;-)
Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of "doing the right thing". For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following. 1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation. Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed. I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said "Ok, Ok, what do you really need here" and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC. I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone. Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to get on board would be huge. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. Miles Fidelman Naslund, Steve wrote:
Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of "doing the right thing". For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following.
1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation.
Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed.
I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said "Ok, Ok, what do you really need here" and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC.
I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone.
Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to get on board would be huge.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
regarding content, I’m not sure you and I live in the same media space, but I live in the same space as Springsteen who wrote "57 CHANNELS (AND NOTHIN' ON)” reports of TW in NYC having 2000 channels and nothing on are common. granted that major BB providers -own- a lot of content, but they certainly don’t allow for à la carte access - one must take the whole bundle. (blame the FCC) the promise of the Internet was that -anyone- could create and publish. that called for curation skills (assuming equal access to published content) such a system would have allowed for personally tailored content on a global scale. Instead, we have “eyeballs” that are encouraged to spend USD 4/per view of poorly digitized DVD copies of 30 year old movies and all the “Honey Boo Boo” you can handle. And be GRATEFUL for the privilege …. That real, quality content is out there, not part of the IP stable of corporate giants, is indisputable. As is the fact that it is effectively locked out of the Internet at large. (youtube was a grand, failed, experiment) /bill (who will return to his oubliette now) On 14July2014Monday, at 16:15, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers
Not a situation where market forces can work all that well.
Miles Fidelman
Naslund, Steve wrote:
Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of "doing the right thing". For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following.
1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation.
Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed.
I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said "Ok, Ok, what do you really need here" and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC.
I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone.
Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to get on board would be huge.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote:
(youtube was a grand, failed, experiment)
It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and watch Netflix, downloaded video, other streaming, and Youtube in roughly equal amounts. My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. But this is all off topic I guess. Regards, Graham -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984
My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
Well that escalated quickly. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Graham Donaldson <graham@airstripone.org.uk
wrote:
On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote:
(youtube was a grand, failed, experiment)
It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and watch Netflix, downloaded video, other streaming, and Youtube in roughly equal amounts. My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
But this is all off topic I guess.
Regards,
Graham
--
"If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself." George Orwell, 1984
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote:
My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
Well that escalated quickly.
You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that. It's just an opinion, you're all welcome to have your own opinion of it, I'm wasn't intended for debate, especially when its so off topic. Graham. -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984
Reality has a well-known liberal bias -Blake On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Graham Donaldson <graham@airstripone.org.uk> wrote:
On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote:
My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
Well that escalated quickly.
You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that. It's just an opinion, you're all welcome to have your own opinion of it, I'm wasn't intended for debate, especially when its so off topic.
Graham.
--
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984
Re: Net Neutrality In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content provider -- have failed. For example, AOL, Prodigy, various "portals", MSN, Netscape, on and on. We can split hairs about who goes on the list but the result is clear since if even only one qualifies we know it failed. The point stands. To a great extent "net neutrality" (or non-neutrality) is yet another attempt to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large. This doesn't prove it won't work but the track record viewed this way is bad: 100% failure rate to date. Mere bandwidth can foil any such nefarious plans, assuming an enforceable zero bandwidth (or nearly so) isn't one of the choices. But just somewhat less bandwidth or as proposed prioritized bandwidth? Maybe not a problem/advantage for very long. Note: I'm using bandwidth measures below as a stand-in for all possible throughput parameters. For example if the norm "have-not" bandwidth were 100mb/s but the "have" bw was 1gb/s I doubt it would make much difference to many, many business models such as news and magazine distribution. Those services in general don't even need 100mb/s end to end (barring some ramp-up in what they view as service) so what do they care if they were excluded from 1gb/s except as a moral calumny? Do you think you could tell the difference between surfing news.google.com at 100mb/s vs 1gb/s? I don't. And if have-not-bw was 1gb/s and have 10gb/s it would make little difference to video stream services except perhaps when someone tried to ramp up to 4K or whatever. But, etc., there's always a new horizon, or will be for a while. So the key to network non-neutrality having any effect is bandwidth inadequacy for certain competitive business models. It only can exist as a business force in a bw-poor world. Right now the business model of concern is video streaming. But at what bandwidth is video streaming a non-issue? That is, I have 100mb/s, you have 1gb/s. We both watch the same movie. Do we even notice? How about 1gb/s vs 10gb/s? There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. 56kb dial-up is sufficient for displaying 512kx512k images, and 1mb/s is luxurious for that application, you couldn't gain a business advantage by offering 10mb/s modest-sized image downloads. There's simply no such open-ended extrapolation. Adequate is adequate. The internet views attempts at content monopoly as damage and routes around it. to paraphrase John Gilmore's famous observation on censorship. P.S. I suppose an up-and-coming bandwidth business model which vastly exceeds video streaming is adequate (i.e., frequent and complete) "cloud" backup. With cheap consumer disks in the multi-TB range, well, do the math. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
Very true. And there's another factor to consider. Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? --Brett
On 07/15/2014 12:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps?
Just off the top of my head .... More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows. Watch a show, while downloading something else in the background. Downloading something, while uploading backups. etc. etc. This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I and others have described on numerous previous occasions, several of which have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers are using the service they are paying you to provide in a way that makes your life more difficult. You need to deal with that reality, not complain that it exists. Doug
At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug Barton wrote:
Just off the top of my head ....
More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows.
How many do you allow for per household? Do they want to pay to be able to saturate everyone's senses simultaneously, with different programming, at any time? (We can do that, but it will cost more.)
This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I and others have described on numerous previous occasions, several of which have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers are using the service they are paying you to provide in a way that makes your life more difficult.
Having customers use the service I sell them does not make my life more difficult. I state very clearly what they are paying for: a certain guaranteed minimum capacity, to a certain point on the Internet backbone, with a certain maximum duty cycle. I can (and often do) take spot measurements of the amount of capacity they are using, tell them how much they are using, and verify that they are getting what they pay for. If they want more, they can always purchase it. The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the following: * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then denying us the resources we need to fulfill them; * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than allowing them to choose; * Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the government so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and * Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for their own failings. If I quit the business, it won't be because I don't care about my customers or love what I do. It'll be because government and corporations have put so many roadblocks in my way that I can no longer deliver. --Brett Glass
Brett, You've more or less accurately described the reality of the situation. Please feel free to proceed with the "dealing with it" suggestion that I also made as part of the post you responded to. :) Good luck, Doug On 07/15/2014 01:42 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug Barton wrote:
Just off the top of my head ....
More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows.
How many do you allow for per household? Do they want to pay to be able to saturate everyone's senses simultaneously, with different programming, at any time? (We can do that, but it will cost more.)
This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I and others have described on numerous previous occasions, several of which have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers are using the service they are paying you to provide in a way that makes your life more difficult.
Having customers use the service I sell them does not make my life more difficult. I state very clearly what they are paying for: a certain guaranteed minimum capacity, to a certain point on the Internet backbone, with a certain maximum duty cycle. I can (and often do) take spot measurements of the amount of capacity they are using, tell them how much they are using, and verify that they are getting what they pay for. If they want more, they can always purchase it.
The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the following:
* Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then denying us the resources we need to fulfill them;
* Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than allowing them to choose;
* Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the government so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and
* Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for their own failings.
If I quit the business, it won't be because I don't care about my customers or love what I do. It'll be because government and corporations have put so many roadblocks in my way that I can no longer deliver.
--Brett Glass
The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the following:
* Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then denying us the resources we need to fulfill them;
* Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than allowing them to choose;
* Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the government so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and
* Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for their own failings.
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? Rubens
Brett Glass writes:
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps?
For single-person households, nefarious things. For households (or small businesses) things change. And while most folks will not need those uplink speeds, for others it can be real useful. And yes, there is room for abuse. H
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps?
--Brett
That is per household, not per person. And, in my experience, one needs around double or more of the listed bandwidth for a robust streaming connection. 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Glass" <nanog@brettglass.com>
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps?
That they understand that more than one person lives in a house. "Spying on us"? <plonk> Cheers, -- jr 'I retract the apology' a -- 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
On 2014-07-16 04:04, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Glass" <nanog@brettglass.com>
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps?
That they understand that more than one person lives in a house.
"Spying on us"?
Presumably he means Internet of Things, and Snowden et. al. Graham. -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984
On July 15, 2014 at 13:08 nanog@brettglass.com (Brett Glass) wrote:
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps?
You can do the same sort of calculation for devices. Once the screen is updating at the screen refresh rate you are done, plus or minus getting a faster screen but as you note that's not open-ended. At some point you can't see faster refreshes anyhow. etc for other human interface devices. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:08:58 -0600, Brett Glass said:
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps?
Actually, vision is higher bandwidth than that - most VR people estimate that approaching human vision requires a gigapixel/second (at 24 bits or more per pixel) - and even that needs to play lots of eye-tracking games to concentrate the rendering on where the eye is focused. Consider how fast even high-end NVidia cards can pump out pixels and you can *still* see it's CGI. Well-shot 4K video of real objects displayed on a good monitor is *just* reaching the "it actually looks real" level - and that's a hell of a lot more than 4Mbps. And remember that bits are consumed by more than just one human per dwelling - you can have multiple people watching different things, and silicon-based consumers burning lots of bandwidth on behalf of their carbon-based masters. There's about a half-zillion ways a gaming console can burn bandwidth, for example. Heck, the Raspberry Pi under my TV can soak up more than 4Mbits/sec just doing a software update. /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the network providers completely lose their shit....
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the network providers completely lose their shit....
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G $339! I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. Mike
Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> writes:
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the network providers completely lose their shit....
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
$339!
I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.
"Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K" Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1... -r
On 07/18/2014 11:05 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> writes:
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
$339!
I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"
Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1...
I just use it as a monitor for my compooter, so it doesn't bother me at all. Which is pretty much the only thing you can do with 4k these days... not much content available that i know of. Mike
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> writes:
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the network providers completely lose their shit....
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
$339!
I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.
"Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"
Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1...
Hi Rob, An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did say he used it for doing software development. Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so I'm not sure where the harm would be there either. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
On 7/19/2014 午前 03:35, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> writes:
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
$339!
I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"
Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1... Hi Rob,
An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did say he used it for doing software development.
Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so I'm not sure where the harm would be there either.
Regards, Bill Herrin
For all intents and purposes, it actually does work fine -- yeah. I've got a few friends who bought it, it seems to work fine.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Paul S. <contact@winterei.se> wrote: ....
For all intents and purposes, it actually does work fine -- yeah.
I've got a few friends who bought it, it seems to work fine.
This is way off topic, but .... This topic was covered back in the beginning of the year at: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers and the followup at: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers-redux The conclusion (in the case) was that for devs, the goods outweigh the bads. As always, your mileage will vary, and some settling occurred during transport. Note, too that Dell, Asus, and Lenovo have newer 4K models out there that address some of the issues (I have explicitly tried to avoid finding the reviews because I do not want to be forced, forced I say, to buy a 4K monitor).
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:35 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> writes:
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the network providers completely lose their shit....
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
$339!
I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.
"Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"
Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1...
Hi Rob,
An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did say he used it for doing software development.
Well... Yes and no. An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, that part is true. However, the brightness of any particular color of any particular pixel in any LED screen is usually controlled by a process known as Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) where the LED actually turns on and off several thousand times per second and modifications of the ratio between the on-time and off-time in those cycles are used to control the apparent brightness. As such, the LEDs are actually turning on and off (flickering) much much faster than any CRT would, but it's not the same kind of flicker. However, most "LED Screens" aren't actually LED screens, most of them are LED backlit CRT Screens. (I didn't look at the specs on this one in detail, so I don't actually know which type it is). This gets further complicated by technologies such as selective dimming, etc. Owen
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:35 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did say he used it for doing software development.
However, the brightness of any particular color of any particular pixel in any LED screen is usually controlled by a process known as Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) where the LED actually turns on and off several thousand times per second and modifications of the ratio between the on-time and off-time in those cycles are used to control the apparent brightness.
However, most "LED Screens" aren't actually LED screens, most of them are LED backlit CRT Screens. (I didn't look at the specs on this one in detail, so I don't actually know which type it is).
Hi Owen, You probably meant LED backlit LCD (liquid crystal display) screens, yes? As opposed to an LCD panel backlit with fluorescent tubes? LCDs don't have a flicker rate either, unless they're particularly badly implemented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED-backlit_LCD_display Interesting point about PWM controlling the LED brightness, although that won't be tied to screen's overall refresh rate either. The pulse timing will be the same whether your overall refresh rate is 30 fps or 300. (And for those of you who don't bother turning off your flat panel monitors at night because what the heck, they won't burn in right?... That's a mistake. You won't hurt the LCD but the cold cathode fluorescent tube backlights are wearing out.) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did say he used it for doing software development.
You are absolutely correct Bill, however,
Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so I'm not sure where the harm would be there either.
In order to create a perception of movement, the images need to have "no image" between them. 24 frame progressive (such as a movie theatre from real film) is usually projected as 48 frames using double shutters. It is the "blank/dark/no image" parts between the images that create the perception of movement in the brain. For a scanning display (CRT) this is automatic -- the persistence of each display frame is timed such that it only persists for one half a scan (which is why if you take a picture of a CRT displaying an image with a camera with a shutter speed faster than the refresh rate, you see a rolling black bar). The "blank/black" frames are created automatically. LCD displays, however, do not have these blank frames between the actual frames, which is why they do not create the appearance of motion correctly. Most LCD display devices, however, have a refresh rate of 60 Hz (some are higher). When fed with a 30p signal, the display electronics should display blackness for every other 60p image. If you send a 60 Hz display a 60p signal, however, it will not have smooth motion. LCD's designed to display moving pictures (ie, TVs) will run at even higher refresh rates (120 Hz for example) which allows a 60p display with proper blanking. In some cases the motion vectors are calculated and only the "moving bits" are blanked (or in some cases displayed as a complement image). Devices with even higher refresh rates do even more esoteric computations to determine the interstitial frames to create a proper perception of motion by the brain. Each manufacturer uses their own proprietary algorithms to determine what to actually display -- some better some worse. Some even use a "scanning backlight" which makes the LCD display "emulate" the scanning behaviour of a CRT display allowing for a CRT-like creation of motion. Now, back to regularly scheduled programming....
Relevant article by former FCC Chair http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-g...
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-g...
It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst. YMMV, of course. Eric
On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-g...
It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst.
Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a "hit piece." Doug
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a "hit piece."
Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year. -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
On 07/16/2014 12:24 PM, Collin Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us <mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us>> wrote:
Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a "hit piece."
Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year.
Ah, gotcha. :) Thanks for that insight. Doug
Le 16/07/2014 17:45, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-g...
It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst.
YMMV, of course.
I tend to agree ;-) Now, what's the ops content of this discussion? Might be a better choice to reroute this discussion to a suitable ISOC forum? I don't judge, but I think the debate is of great value, but not necessarily ``here'', but rather ``there''?---see you there? ;-) Cheers, mh
Eric
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-g...
In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer — traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points, or “off ramps,” and better quality of service. In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened the author neglected to say what planet he was on randy
On 7/16/14 3:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-g... In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer — traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points, or “off ramps,” and better quality of service.
In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened If one deliberately allows a path to become congested in the direction towards a receiver, It is the peer, not the receiving network who discards the traffic... the author neglected to say what planet he was on randy
"In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened, and nothing is broken that needs fixing." Prefixing a statement with "in truth" doesn't actually make it true, Bob. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-g...
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Minor nit: McDowell is a former two term commissioner, but was not a chairman. He is, however, a real standout in terms of understanding the Internet and has many of the most coherent comments of any commissioner since his appointment. He was a leader in the campaign to push back the attempts of the ITU to establish sovereignty over interconnection and to apply telecom tariffs to the Internet. It's worth noting that there was a time when Internet policy at the national level was not the ideological exercise that it has become. There was very little difference between Clinton's last FCC chairman (Kennard) and Bush 43's first chairman (Powell) on the general approach of the federal government to the Internet. Powell was, after all, the chairman who first articulated "Internet Freedom" goals in his famous "Four Freedoms" speech in Boulder in 2004; see: http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V3I1/JTHTLv3i1_Powell.PDF It's a shame that people can't discuss principles of network policy today without first signing a loyalty oath to one of the political parties. It seems to me that Kennard, Powell, Wheeler, McDowell, and current commissioner Pai have all articulated great ideas about Internet policy that stand on their own without regard to political affiliations. RB On 7/16/14, 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-g...
-- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum
Barry, Your point is well made and applies to present conditions. I'm not sure the current Net Neutrality debate extends so much to access, though we should talk about that (Consumer access service policy: No servers at home!? Asymmetric bandwidth profiles!? What is this, the dark ages?). The problem as I understand exists within the realm of the backbone and content where scale is a concern. And your point still applies as some explicit value for adequate can be determined, i.e. 10 or 100g peer and transit links. Regarding neutrality, if public megacorp monetizes priority traffic, does that present a moral hazard for megacorp to allow interface saturation and push more content into priority service? What is the high water mark for priority services reaching best effort behavior, i.e. all traffic is priority contending for a single queue? Anyway, I feel like this horse is dead. I'd like to talk about neutrality in symmetry on consumer access services. I'd gladly trade my 30/5 for 15/15 with the ability to host services for the ~$60/mo I pay today. Jason On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Re: Net Neutrality
In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content provider -- have failed.
For example, AOL, Prodigy, various "portals", MSN, Netscape, on and on. We can split hairs about who goes on the list but the result is clear since if even only one qualifies we know it failed. The point stands.
To a great extent "net neutrality" (or non-neutrality) is yet another attempt to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large.
This doesn't prove it won't work but the track record viewed this way is bad: 100% failure rate to date.
Mere bandwidth can foil any such nefarious plans, assuming an enforceable zero bandwidth (or nearly so) isn't one of the choices.
But just somewhat less bandwidth or as proposed prioritized bandwidth?
Maybe not a problem/advantage for very long.
Note: I'm using bandwidth measures below as a stand-in for all possible throughput parameters.
For example if the norm "have-not" bandwidth were 100mb/s but the "have" bw was 1gb/s I doubt it would make much difference to many, many business models such as news and magazine distribution. Those services in general don't even need 100mb/s end to end (barring some ramp-up in what they view as service) so what do they care if they were excluded from 1gb/s except as a moral calumny?
Do you think you could tell the difference between surfing news.google.com at 100mb/s vs 1gb/s? I don't.
And if have-not-bw was 1gb/s and have 10gb/s it would make little difference to video stream services except perhaps when someone tried to ramp up to 4K or whatever. But, etc., there's always a new horizon, or will be for a while.
So the key to network non-neutrality having any effect is bandwidth inadequacy for certain competitive business models. It only can exist as a business force in a bw-poor world.
Right now the business model of concern is video streaming.
But at what bandwidth is video streaming a non-issue?
That is, I have 100mb/s, you have 1gb/s. We both watch the same movie. Do we even notice? How about 1gb/s vs 10gb/s?
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
56kb dial-up is sufficient for displaying 512kx512k images, and 1mb/s is luxurious for that application, you couldn't gain a business advantage by offering 10mb/s modest-sized image downloads.
There's simply no such open-ended extrapolation. Adequate is adequate.
The internet views attempts at content monopoly as damage and routes around it.
to paraphrase John Gilmore's famous observation on censorship.
P.S. I suppose an up-and-coming bandwidth business model which vastly exceeds video streaming is adequate (i.e., frequent and complete) "cloud" backup. With cheap consumer disks in the multi-TB range, well, do the math.
-- -Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would consider the broadband options available to them before they move. Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them but they will take what they can get. Steven Naslund
Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers
Not a situation where market forces can work all that well.
Miles Fidelman
Steve, I'd question you're use of the word rural if this statement is accurate, "Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us." Perhaps you've just been lucky or your economics are different, but I can (off list) provide you with lots of locations in the US that neither of those operators, much less both, can reach. Perhaps more importantly the economics are such that one and only one tier 2 (sometimes tier 2/3) operator is available. I work with an ISP in west Texas who has been waiting on an AT&T build out for nearly 14 months to be able to buy bandwidth from anyone because there is no remaining capacity on the SONET network and no other operator has any physical facilities in the area. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would consider the broadband options available to them before they move.
Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them but they will take what they can get.
Steven Naslund
Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers
Not a situation where market forces can work all that well.
Miles Fidelman
On Jul 15, 2014, at 08:19 , Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would consider the broadband options available to them before they move.
If you want more than 1Mbps downstream or more than 384k upstream over terrestrial facilities in most of San Jose, California (the 3rd largest city by population in the largest population state in the US and the 10th largest city in the US last I looked), then you have exactly one choice. If that's not a monopoly, I'm not sure how you define one. The situation in the vast majority of the bay area (including most of silicon valley) is the same. It's even worse in less densely populated areas in many cases, though USF has distorted that to some extent because there are rural areas where the monopoly facilities based carrier has taken subsidies to provide higher quality access than is currently available to many of us living in more urban areas.
Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them but they will take what they can get.
How is a customer supposed to react to that? In a location where their choice is $CABLECO for 30Mbps/7Mbps vs. $TELCO for 768k/384k, how, exactly, does one react in a meaningful or useful way? Owen
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business.
There's the problem. In my neck of the woods, there is one and only one provider. They have a guaranteed monopoly for the next few decades. They got a huge grant to put in FTTH from the government and they still have pricing from the last decade. An 8/1 connection is $120/mo and require you to get dialtone (they say it's FCC mandated) to the tune of an additional $20/mo (that's with no long distance and every possible feature stripped). (Side-note: when the power fails during the winter, they turn off all internet access after 5 minutes so they can save battery power for the phones--which travel the exact same fiber path as the interntet). I'm not a huge fan of Comcast's recent actions, but if they rolled into the area with the same offer they have "in town" (100/25 for ~$75/mo), I would switch faster than you could spell monopoly. There's plenty of fiber lying within 1/4 mile from my house (runs between Seattle and Portland), but none of the companies are interested in being a local ISP, or leasing to a non-business, and I couldn't afford to start my own, let alone trenching my own fiber to other residents who are also fed up. It doesn't matter to me what "the big players" do because as a consumer, I still don't have a choice. So while I find my local provider's practices utterly despicable, I can't exactly speak with my wallet unless I quit being an IT guy, cancel my internet, and start raising goats or something. -A
Sorry to be cold about this but as high speed connectivity becomes more necessity than luxury, the market will still react. For example, I could move to the top of a mountain with no electric however most of us would not. If I was buying a home and I could not get decent high speed Internet, I would not live there because that is my business and I need it. If rural areas cannot get the kind of services they need from the carriers they have, they will have to react and break the monopoly. The economic model still works but is not as fast and efficient. There is always satellite which will all know if painful but it is an option so there is almost always not a real monopoly. Granted, if all I have to do is beat satellite, my bar is lower. You are right about becoming your own ISP. If you want to lose a lot of money in a hurry I would advise you to go to Las Vegas or become a facilities based small ISP. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
There's the problem. In my neck of the woods, there is one and only one provider. They have a guaranteed monopoly for the next few decades. They got a huge grant to put in FTTH from the government and they still have pricing from the last decade.
An 8/1 connection is $120/mo and require you to get dialtone (they say it's FCC mandated) to the tune of an additional $20/mo (that's with no long distance and every possible feature stripped). (Side-note: when the power fails during the winter, they turn off all internet access after 5 >>>minutes so they can save battery power for the phones--which travel the exact same fiber path as the interntet).
I'm not a huge fan of Comcast's recent actions, but if they rolled into the area with the same offer they have "in town" (100/25 for ~$75/mo), I would switch faster than you could spell monopoly.
There's plenty of fiber lying within 1/4 mile from my house (runs between Seattle and Portland), but none of the companies are interested in being a local ISP, or leasing to a non-business, and I couldn't afford to start my own, let alone trenching my own fiber to other residents who are >>>also fed up.
It doesn't matter to me what "the big players" do because as a consumer, I still don't have a choice. So while I find my local provider's practices utterly despicable, I can't exactly speak with my wallet unless I quit being an IT guy, cancel my internet, and start raising goats or something.
-A
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business.
Hi Steve, Barrier to entry tends to negate "market forces." I dislike Verizon. Their FiOS service does not provide the technology I really want (e.g. delegated reverse DNS and a battery backup in the local vault that doesn't cut my voip via internet on power loss) and their customer support process is infuriating (It took me 5 hours of calls over 2 months to fix my login to a point where I could change the credit card used for payment.I just wanted to pay the damn bill.) And yet I buy their service. No one else is likely to bring fiber to my home and they categorically refuse to unbundle just the fiber part to any other business that might be willing to provide the service I actually want. Barrier to entry, typically in the form of sunk infrastructure, cross-subsidy and/or regulatory shenanigans, tends to fully negate the effect of other market forces. You don't have to give the customer what they want. You just have to make sure it is impractical for anyone else to sell them something better. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
Right now, peering agreements are the wild west.
no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. but then, you are not an operator so no surprise.
what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on doughnut, not the hole.
Sure looks like a wild west range war to me. And let's not forget that Netflix is not some tiny company anymore - 1/3 of Internet traffic or some such, 46million members, $1billion Q1 income. Yeah - big guys fighting, no established law or regulation (well, there was, but the Supreme Court overturned it) - looks like a range war to me.
ahhh. so
not government regulated == wild west
got it
randy
lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west
Wait, I thought that was Wall Street.... *ducks and runs for cover* Matt
On July 13, 2014 at 11:42 randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
ahhh. so
not government regulated == wild west
got it
Let's not forget that the big players in all this have cross-subsidized from huge, government-protected monopolies or very-small-N oligopolies in cable, phone services and wire plants, etc. To now suggest that non-governmental business processes would be superior to arbitrate interconnects etc seems, to me, highly disingenuous as a principled position. Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated sinecures. I'd argue it's not the wild west inasmuch as it's more like the old joke about three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. But the imagery of range wars is apt. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated sinecures.
The problem with this is that so long as service providers are allowed to be facilities providers, there is an economic natural tendency to monopoly or small-N oligopoly in all but the densest of population centers that will result as a simple matter of external reality. It simply costs too damn much to put facilities in for there to be large-N copies of facilities serving the same area. That is one of the reasons I'm such a huge fan of home-run SWCs[1] with large colos run by a facilities only provider, whether that FOP is a municipality, NGO, or for profit entity (or even multiples if that were to somehow be feasible). Owen [1] Serving "Wire" Center -- a hub where all of the fiber from a given distribution area (of radius N where N < maximum reasonable distance served by common transmission technologies available at the time of construction with costs in reason for household usage. Today, I believe that's about 5km, but it may be more).
I meant that comment as more of a snark that if someone wants to argue let's let the market take care of it then first we should reign in the govt-issued monopolies and small-N oligopolies. I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3 or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about". There has been massive cross-subsidization from voice monopolies also. The whole thing stinks if one cherishes anything resembling a free and open market. But worse, much worse, are the vertical trusts. Comcast is the nation's major CATV provider with on demand and pay per view video. AND Comcast owns NBC Universal. This is like one company owning almost all the auto manufacturers, petroleum and gasoline companies, refineries, tire manufacturers, and the roads and road construction companies. And obtained all that by government fiat. All that's left, to beat the analogy to death, is one is more or less free to drive where they want. And now they're working on that! And it's getting worse not better (e.g., Comcast is trying to acquire #2 Time-Warner.) Shall we wait for them to merge with Verizon and then AT&T before we smell the coffee? Calling on the FCC to straighten any of this out is nonsense, they don't have the jurisdiction for starters. And, worse, the FCC's primary product is media censorship. What we need is the Dept of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to enforce anti-trust law probably with the help of Congress (yeah good luck with that.) The FCC is what happens AFTER we admit that we WANT it all to be one big monopoly like AT&T was pre-breakup. Then of course we'd have to regulate that monopoly. That's why the FCC was created (and spectrum management.) Right now it's the worst of both worlds, they get the effective monopoly with protections and almost none of the regulation. We're in a pickle. On July 17, 2014 at 03:00 owen@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: (me...)
Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated sinecures.
The problem with this is that so long as service providers are allowed to be facilities providers, there is an economic natural tendency to monopoly or small-N oligopoly in all but the densest of population centers that will result as a simple matter of external reality. It simply costs too damn much to put facilities in for there to be large-N copies of facilities serving the same area.
That is one of the reasons I'm such a huge fan of home-run SWCs[1] with large colos run by a facilities only provider, whether that FOP is a municipality, NGO, or for profit entity (or even multiples if that were to somehow be feasible).
Owen
[1] Serving "Wire" Center -- a hub where all of the fiber from a given distribution area (of radius N where N < maximum reasonable distance served by common transmission technologies available at the time of construction with costs in reason for household usage. Today, I believe that's about 5km, but it may be more).
---- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com>
I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3 or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about".
Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone tethering. Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3. Could you dig that up, Barry? 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
On July 18, 2014 at 14:49 jra@baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com>
I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3 or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about".
Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone tethering.
Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3.
Could you dig that up, Barry?
http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/ or http://tinyurl.com/ourl62e -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com>
On July 18, 2014 at 14:49 jra@baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com>
I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3 or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about".
Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone tethering.
Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3.
Could you dig that up, Barry?
http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Thank you. That suggests that 90% of USAdian households have access to wired broadband that is 10mbps down or better, which flies pretty hard in the face of the last numbers I saw, which said that no better than 60% had even DSL available to them as presently orderable service. I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant. 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
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant.
The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's kidneys due to the way they overstated access. It was done on a per-county basis, and if the service was offered *anywhere* in the county, it was counted as accessible to *the entire population* of said county. So if there were 50,000 people in the county, and 6 households got Comcast because they lived right on the county line and Comcast hit their street because they were doing a buildiut in a new development just over the line, the FCC said all 50K had access to cable. Similary for more suurban areas, where Cox may have cable to half the people, and Verizon has DSL to a *different* third, and 1/6 are scratching their tookuses waiting for broadband from everybody - the FCC numbers say everybody in the county has access to 2 competing providers. I don't know if they got any better - I doubt it, as the FCC is a severe victim of regulatory capture, and the regulated companies don't really want realistic numbers published...
Ah, yes... /those/ numbers. Lyrically put, Valdis; thanks. On July 19, 2014 6:28:26 PM EDT, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant.
The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's kidneys due to the way they overstated access. It was done on a per-county basis, and if the service was offered *anywhere* in the county, it was counted as accessible to *the entire population* of said county.
So if there were 50,000 people in the county, and 6 households got Comcast because they lived right on the county line and Comcast hit their street because they were doing a buildiut in a new development just over the line, the FCC said all 50K had access to cable.
Similary for more suurban areas, where Cox may have cable to half the people, and Verizon has DSL to a *different* third, and 1/6 are scratching their tookuses waiting for broadband from everybody - the FCC numbers say everybody in the county has access to 2 competing providers.
I don't know if they got any better - I doubt it, as the FCC is a severe victim of regulatory capture, and the regulated companies don't really want realistic numbers published...
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400, Joly MacFie said:
1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and..
And what if "terminating" versus "transit" depends on where you observe from? (For example, if we provide transit to a downstream, but only announce a route to one of our upstreams, and that one upstream limits the further redistribution of the route..)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400, Joly MacFie said:
1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and..
And what if "terminating" versus "transit" depends on where you observe from? (For example, if we provide transit to a downstream, but only announce a route to one of our upstreams, and that one upstream limits the further redistribution of the route..)
Really? This is a question? You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single uplink count here, yes. You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers are other networks, including larger business networks that are or might become multi-homed. In short, if the plurality of your customers have an ASN. I don't even make a living at this, and I didn't have a problem with this definition... 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
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single uplink count here, yes.
You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers are other networks, including larger business networks that are or might become multi-homed. In short, if the plurality of your customers have an ASN.
And for a chunk of time, we looked like a transit network for traffic that passed through us heading for Internet2, if you were looking at us from the Internet2 side, and damned few eyeballs unless you call a few dozen HPC clusters eyeballs. But if you were looking at us from our Cogent upstream, we looked like an eyeball network because we didn't provide those downstreams any transit in Cogent's direction, so all that was visible was our tens of thousands of eyeballs that were all looking at stuff that wasn't on Internet2. (And yes, things got "interesting" a few times in our routing swamp when we didn't keep straight which thing went where, and we leaked a route or two and looked like eyeballs to Internet2, or transit to Cogent...) So as I said, it depends on where you were looking at us from.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single uplink count here, yes.
You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers are other networks, including larger business networks that are or might become multi-homed. In short, if the plurality of your customers have an ASN.
And for a chunk of time, we looked like a transit network for traffic that passed through us heading for Internet2, if you were looking at us from the Internet2 side, and damned few eyeballs unless you call a few dozen HPC clusters eyeballs.
But if you were looking at us from our Cogent upstream, we looked like an eyeball network because we didn't provide those downstreams any transit in Cogent's direction, so all that was visible was our tens of thousands of eyeballs that were all looking at stuff that wasn't on Internet2.
So as I said, it depends on where you were looking at us from.
What you *look like from outside* depends on whence you look, yes... But that doesn't affect what you *are*; my definition was based on the view of the mythical superobserver *above* flatland, who can see everything cause he's at right angles to it; the majority of ASs, I would venture to speculate, veer sharply in one direction or the other -- even if that's because a transit operator acquired an eyeball operator, or vice versa, and those parts are in separate ASen. Do we have disagreement on that point? I've mostly been above the forest, rather than in the trees... 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
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:34 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
everything cause he's at right angles to it; the majority of ASs, I would venture to speculate, veer sharply in one direction or the other -- even if that's because a transit operator acquired an eyeball operator, or vice versa, and those parts are in separate ASen.
Yeah, at that point we looked like a dessert topping *and* a floor wax.. :) (We've since moved most of the transit games into a more separate AS, so the distinction is easier to see from outside)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com>
I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists.
Those things are all true, Matt. But they are orthogonal to "are you an ISP" (for any definition of ISP). 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
On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote:
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/)
While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two months ago:
http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon...
As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best.
Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it.
I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange. For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer. Owen
Owen, That's because you're not thinking about the geography involved. Where possible the smaller operators often do form groups and partnerships, but creating networks that serve more than a 3-4 operators often means covering more distance than if the operators simply go directly to the tier 1 ISP individually. There have been many attempts at creating networks that provide that kind of service but the economics are often bad. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote:
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/)
While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two months ago:
http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon...
As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of
http://lariat.net/peering existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best.
Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my
current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it.
I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe
to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange.
For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer.
Owen
I was speaking specifically of the cases where they are already grouped at a central location such as the 9 in Salt Lake City or the 19 in Denver mentioned in the example to which I responded. I’m pretty sure that in the case where they are already grouped into a less populous exchange point, there is no issue of geography, especially, e.g. SLC or DEN as mentioned. Owen On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Owen,
That's because you're not thinking about the geography involved. Where possible the smaller operators often do form groups and partnerships, but creating networks that serve more than a 3-4 operators often means covering more distance than if the operators simply go directly to the tier 1 ISP individually. There have been many attempts at creating networks that provide that kind of service but the economics are often bad.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote:
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/)
While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two months ago:
http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon...
As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best.
Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it.
I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can.
Jima
I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange.
For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer.
Owen
Actually, there are some examples of this, and I'm surprised Mr. Temkin didn't point them out. I've been told by rural telcos (RLECs) that there's a consolidated mini-exchange in Idaho that was originally built with some support from the state in order exchange phone calls within Idaho that would otherwise have to be sent to Denver or Seattle for interconnect. The RLECs subsequently used the facility for peering between their broadband networks, and at some point Netflix, at its own expense, installed some of its proprietary servers and paid for a circuit to Seattle. The part that excited the RLECs was Netflix footing the bill to move its traffic from Seattle to Idaho. The RLECs told me they're not overjoyed by the cost of moving all that traffic 50 miles on their own networks, but it beats moving it all the way from Seattle. I thought that was funny since Comcast moves Netflix traffic 100 miles from their nearest exchange point in San Jose to my home in the East SF Bay. Looking at the traceroute, it all passes through SF, but Netflix doesn't have facilities there. Richard On 7/11/14, 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange.
For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer.
Owen
-- Richard Bennett
Hi Richard, You may be confusing Idaho for Portland, but either way we are constantly adding new POPs and Portland is a great example of us bearing the cost that ISPs were bearing before to haul traffic from Seattle or San Jose. I would consider that a great success. Regarding Comcast in SF, they do not interconnect with other networks there, otherwise we'd probably hand off in the city. The interconnect locations are not always our choice. On Friday, July 11, 2014, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> wrote:
Actually, there are some examples of this, and I'm surprised Mr. Temkin didn't point them out. I've been told by rural telcos (RLECs) that there's a consolidated mini-exchange in Idaho that was originally built with some support from the state in order exchange phone calls within Idaho that would otherwise have to be sent to Denver or Seattle for interconnect. The RLECs subsequently used the facility for peering between their broadband networks, and at some point Netflix, at its own expense, installed some of its proprietary servers and paid for a circuit to Seattle. The part that excited the RLECs was Netflix footing the bill to move its traffic from Seattle to Idaho.
The RLECs told me they're not overjoyed by the cost of moving all that traffic 50 miles on their own networks, but it beats moving it all the way from Seattle. I thought that was funny since Comcast moves Netflix traffic 100 miles from their nearest exchange point in San Jose to my home in the East SF Bay. Looking at the traceroute, it all passes through SF, but Netflix doesn't have facilities there.
Richard
On 7/11/14, 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange.
For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer.
Owen
-- Richard Bennett
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:50:22AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: [...]
I'm always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don't form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange.
In my experience, the price of buying transit from established players has always been close to the combined price of buying a circuit and establishing some form of presence at a remote exchange. Close enough that everyone was willing to just pay for transit without the added administrative overhead of the transit consortium. I've seen such transit consortiums that pretend to be exchange points as well -- but that's a slightly different beast. I've also seen where the folks that should peer don't because they all have mutual transit providers, and the cost of interconnection is higher than the incremental transit costs for their cross-ASN traffic. You can't argue "increased route splay" when the circuit costs dominate the equation. Internet in the hinterlands is a tough ride compared to fiber-rich areas... But it keeps getting better, so there is hope.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/ )
--------
Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then
refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free and to build out network connections for which it should be footing the bill. (Netflix told us that, if we wanted to improve streaming performance, we should pay $10,000 per month for a dedicated link, spanning nearly 1,000 miles, to one of its "peering points" -- just to serve it and no other streaming provider.) It then launches misleading PR campaigns against ISPs that dare to object to this behavior.
--Brett Glass
As I see it, Netflix seem to have provided a reasonable set of options to provide data to an ISP's customers: - Over a certain volume, they'll provide caches to be hosted within the eyeball AS - Under that volume, you can pick it up via peering IXes - If you don't peer with them anywhere, you can get it via transit The complaint here seems to be that Netflix won't build out to any/every/many smaller locations and/or pay to have their caches hosted. Appreciate that there may be different views, but I'd say Netflix provide a reasonable set of options here for the smaller ISP. I'd have thought factoring in the assorted costs to access Netflix content (building to a mutual peering IX vs. transit vs. the cost to run a local cache) would fall into the standard sort of analysis you'd make running an ISP same as when assessing if it makes sense to hosts a Google or Akamai cache. Sam
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis.
they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any network
At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes.
I was going to sit on the sidelines.... but... Take Netflix out of the equation and google things like "tf2 verizon fios" or any other game. Who do you point the finger at then? -Jim P.
Unless said tf2 server happens to be hosted within UU's own network, I'd imagine the blame would go to whichever party in the transit path refused to upgrade their commitments. On 7/11/2014 午前 10:21, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis. they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any network
At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes. I was going to sit on the sidelines.... but...
Take Netflix out of the equation and google things like "tf2 verizon fios" or any other game. Who do you point the finger at then?
-Jim P.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a
caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis.
they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any network
At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
Uh, yeah, you've already been corrected on that score, no need to spank you again for that one...
Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes.
So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to reference). At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my subscription to them."
Miles Fidelman
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:35 AM
So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to reference).
At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my subscription to them."
Matt
I disagree as all of this makes perfect sense. Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly. And you goes: so you would like to become our customer? Sure this is the monthly fee for the link and transport service that would suite your needs. And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal? What would be your answer? Of course this "good deal" has some precursors. If your customers fail to obey your statistical multiplexing predictions and links to your upstreams are running hot than you have several options. a) You could pay for the upgrades of links to your upstreams. b) You could take the "good deal" Netflix has proposed to save costs for a). c) You could not give a damn about your customers as they have nowhere else to go anyways and use this advantage to force Netflix to become your customer (well paying customer as they would need big pipes). What would you do? Options a) and b) assumes of course that Netflix has good connections to their upstreams and not misusing their position into forcing the customer relationship into free peering one. adam
Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly.
Yes. As an eyeball network operator I pay my transit provider to get the packets my customers want to me. Content providers pay their transit providers to get their packets to my customers. If there is a way we can cut out the transit provider, why wouldn't we?
And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal?
This isn't exactly how it goes though. Netflix are able to peer at around 25 locations in the US. The chances of a large ISP not having at least one common point are pretty slim. So then it goes down to an interconnect cost across a building. I'm in the UK, and I know the price that we pay is not very much at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix were willing to split the cost of this link. Then we are down to port costs. These days a 10G port costs very little indeed. And of course the larger you are, the more buying clout you have, the less it costs. Combined with the fact that you are taking traffic off your transit connection, therefore paying a smaller bill, it is very likely that this will work out in a profit situation.
c) You could not give a damn about your customers as they have nowhere else to go anyways and use this advantage to force Netflix to become your customer (well paying customer as they would need big pipes).
This appears to be what Comcast, Verizon etc are doing. Instead of paying to receive the packets from their transit provider, they want to be paid to receive them instead. I wonder just how much the recent price increase from Netflix was to help fund the extortion they are being subjected to? Dave
Hi, I'm Dave Temkin, and I work for Netflix. I'd like to dispel a few incorrect assumptions portrayed in this thread. I'm going to avoid going point by point, but will try to cover the concerns raised broadly. First and foremost, we built our CDN, Open Connect, with the intention to deploy it as widely as possible in order to save ISPs who are delivering our traffic money and improve our mutual customer experience. This goes for ISPs large and small, domestic and international, big endian and little endian. We've never demanded payment from an ISP nor have we ever charged for an Open Connect Appliance. When we first launched almost three years ago, we set a lower boundary for receiving a Netflix Open Connect Appliance (which are always free) at 5Gbps. Since then we've softened that limit to 3.5Gbps due to efficiencies of how we pre-load our appliances (more on that below). We explicitly call our "cache" an Appliance because it's not a demand driven transparent or flow-through cache like the Akamai or Google caches. We do this because we know what's going to be popular the next day or even week and push a manifest to the Appliance to tell it what to download (usually in the middle of the night, but this is configurable by the ISP). The benefit of this architecture is that a single Appliance can get 70+% offload on a network, and three appliances clustered together can get 90+% offload, while consuming approximately 500 watts of power, using 4U of rack space, and serving 14Gbps per appliance. The downside of this architecture is that it requires significant bandwidth to fill; in some ISPs cases significantly more than they consume at peak viewing time. This is why our solution may not work well for some small ISPs and we instead suggest peering, which has 100% offload. We've put a lot of effort into localizing our peering infrastructure worldwide. As you can see from this map (sorry for the image), we're in 49 locations around the world with the significant bulk of them in the US (blue pins = 1 location, red pins = >1 location in a metro) - more detailed version at http://goo.gl/eDHpHU and in our PeeringDB record ( http://as2906.peeringdb.com) : We constantly re-evaluate the best places to deliver our traffic from and this year alone (2014) have added 14 POP's and still have at least 4 more to go. We continue to make large capital expenditures and invest human capital in making our streaming technology more efficient to ensure a lower cost of delivery for our partner ISPs and consistent quality for our mutual customers. I'm happy to answer any questions or address concerns, and as always you can reach out to (peering)@(netfilx).com -Dave Temkin Director, Network Architecture & Strategy On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Dave Bell <me@geordish.org> wrote:
Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly.
Yes. As an eyeball network operator I pay my transit provider to get the packets my customers want to me. Content providers pay their transit providers to get their packets to my customers. If there is a way we can cut out the transit provider, why wouldn't we?
And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal?
This isn't exactly how it goes though. Netflix are able to peer at around 25 locations in the US. The chances of a large ISP not having at least one common point are pretty slim.
So then it goes down to an interconnect cost across a building. I'm in the UK, and I know the price that we pay is not very much at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix were willing to split the cost of this link.
Then we are down to port costs. These days a 10G port costs very little indeed. And of course the larger you are, the more buying clout you have, the less it costs. Combined with the fact that you are taking traffic off your transit connection, therefore paying a smaller bill, it is very likely that this will work out in a profit situation.
c) You could not give a damn about your customers as they have nowhere else to go anyways and use this advantage to force Netflix to become your customer (well paying customer as they would need big pipes).
This appears to be what Comcast, Verizon etc are doing. Instead of paying to receive the packets from their transit provider, they want to be paid to receive them instead. I wonder just how much the recent price increase from Netflix was to help fund the extortion they are being subjected to?
Dave
It strikes me that there are lots of legitimate, but conflicting, views on this topic - all of which come down to there being no clearly established principles for peering, traffic exchange, or settlements (either de facto or imposed by law or regulation ---- and different player are coming from worlds with very different existing models. Traditional package delivery: - sender pays, shipping costs paid by purchaser - COD model - purchaser pays on delivery There's the traditional telecom model: - end users pay for basic connection and local facilities (which, for corporate users includes PBX or Centrex costs) - caller pays for end-to-end connection - caller pays local carrier - with money flowing to both the long-haul carrier and the far-end local exchange carrier (somewhat modified, for a time, when it was common to have a separate long distance carrier, and a separate bill) - and then there's the whole realm of 900 numbers - money is collected by the telco, but forwarded to 3rd party providers Wireless: - pay by the minute for connection, at both ends - settlements up and down the chain Cable: - end user pays for connection and content - cable company pays content providers Internet: - users pay for access, pay more for a larger pipe - access networks pay for connections to backbone networks - some formal exchange points - lots of back-room peering arrangements - general principle of settlement-free peering when traffic flows are equal in both directions - big problem with large one-way flows (e.g., the purported 1/3 of Internet traffic that consists of Netflix video streams - not sure I completely believe that statistic, but video sure seems to dominate the net these days, with a lot of it coming from Netflix and maybe YouTube) So... which model to apply: - shipping model: sender pays shipping, bundled in price (we all pay Netflix, Netflix pays all the carriers) - COD model: (we're still paying Netflix, but Verizon collects and forwards the dollars) - telephone model: caller pays (but the notion of caller is kind of tricky in a P2P - cable model: customer pays local carrier, local carrier pays all the upstream costs for both content and carriage (Verizon becomes Netflix customer, pays Netflix) And that's before we get into settlements - whomever pays the initial bill, and whomever collects it - who pays the folks in them middle. There are real costs, ultimately the end user pays the bill - so it comes down to who collects the dollars and how they get distributed. Where it gets muddied up is when: - we try to avoid models that are "unfair" and/or "anti-competitive" and/or threaten to Balkanize the net ("Fast Lanes," "net neutrality," "common carriage") - a rather important set of considerations to most of us - big players start pointing fingers in the interests of pushing costs onto others while maximizing their own profits All in all, one big mess. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Interesting point. The truth is, the ISP is responsible for the quality of experience for their end customers regardless of what content the customers consume or what time they consume it. They pay a monthly subscription / access fee and that is where it stops. ISPs can chose to blame Netflix until the cows come home or alternatively, they can do something more constructive, like deploying a cache solution or establishing direct peering with Netflix in one of the POIs. Ahad -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Vitkovský Adam Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 6:33 PM To: Matthew Petach Cc: NANOG Subject: RE: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:35 AM
So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to reference).
At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my subscription to them."
Matt
I disagree as all of this makes perfect sense. Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly. And you goes: so you would like to become our customer? Sure this is the monthly fee for the link and transport service that would suite your needs. And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal? What would be your answer? Of course this "good deal" has some precursors. If your customers fail to obey your statistical multiplexing predictions and links to your upstreams are running hot than you have several options. a) You could pay for the upgrades of links to your upstreams. b) You could take the "good deal" Netflix has proposed to save costs for a). c) You could not give a damn about your customers as they have nowhere else to go anyways and use this advantage to force Netflix to become your customer (well paying customer as they would need big pipes). What would you do? Options a) and b) assumes of course that Netflix has good connections to their upstreams and not misusing their position into forcing the customer relationship into free peering one. adam
Ahad Aboss wrote:
Interesting point.
The truth is, the ISP is responsible for the quality of experience for their end customers regardless of what content the customers consume or what time they consume it. They pay a monthly subscription / access fee and that is where it stops. ISPs can chose to blame Netflix until the cows come home or alternatively, they can do something more constructive, like deploying a cache solution or establishing direct peering with Netflix in one of the POIs.
Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there and fix it? One might answer, "of course not." It's a legitimate position, and by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes. Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. This is also legitimate, and by this argument, Verizon should be paying to improve service out to Netflix. Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many negative side-effects result. Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be recognized as being mostly posturing for position. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:38:03 -0400 Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Ahad Aboss wrote:
Interesting point.
The truth is, the ISP is responsible for the quality of experience for their end customers regardless of what content the customers consume or what time they consume it. They pay a monthly subscription / access fee and that is where it stops. ISPs can chose to blame Netflix until the cows come home or alternatively, they can do something more constructive, like deploying a cache solution or establishing direct peering with Netflix in one of the POIs.
Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there and fix it?
One might answer, "of course not." It's a legitimate position, and by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes.
SNIP...
Of course it is not my telco's responsibility to fix the other telco's network. But you analogy is not valid here. Lets change it up a little bit to be more in line with the issue at hand. You make a phone call to a rural carrier or another country and get a horrible connection. If that degradation takes place on the link, that your telco owns, where it is handed off to the next network, then yes, it IS the originating telco's responsibility to pay to have it fixed. The same goes for the Verizon/Netflix issue. The problem is at the edge where Verizon connects to the rest of the internet. They are deliberately letting those links become congested to degrade Netflix, and any other provider, in order to protect their own video revenue stream. They could care less about the customer experience as long as they can blame someone else and keep the money flowing and add additional revenue by pissing off said Netflix customer enough that they move to a Verizon solution. Robert
*puts on trolling hat* Maybe the solution can be to have the Netflix client support the torrent protocol, so the upload from netflix is minimal. Maybe pre-distribute files encripted, then distribute the de-crypt key once the medias are distributed enough in different nodes. So netflix would be doing the first upload, then distribute the keys. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many negative side-effects result.
<hobbyhorse> No. Nope. DAMNIT, NO. Why is it that whenever we are having these conversations -- be they about Netflix and Verizon, or restaurants and waiters -- that we always tacitly *approve* of the idea that the zero sum game of money includes only the vendors and the customers? Why the *hell* do we not assume that perhaps, just maybe, *the company in the middle* ought to take some of that extra cost out of their profits? Have they succeeded in convincing us -- the paying customers -- that corporate profit margins are sacred? That they should *never* have to pay some of that cost themselves? Why? </hobbyhorse> 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
Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there and fix it?
One might answer, "of course not." It’s a legitimate position, and by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes.
Uh, no… Because in this case, you’re making a phone call FROM a rural area or 3rd world country with a horrible system to a large metro with excellent phone service. Then, you’re attempting to reverse the analogy and ask the service you’re calling in the large metro to come fix your rural 3rd world telco at their expense.
Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. This is also legitimate, and by this argument, Verizon should be paying to improve service out to Netflix.
USF is a great idea on paper. Its implementation leaves much to be desired. I’m all for subsidizing GPON to rural areas, but I’m not so excited about the fact that these GPON subsidies that I’m paying for are causing the telcos to implement GPON in rural areas while ignoring places like the capital of silicon valley. That’s right, you can’t get GPON in most of silicon valley, but you can in much of South Dakota and even many parts of Alaska.
Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for the infrastructure - it’s more about gorillas fighting, which bill it shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many negative side-effects result.
Not really. At the end of the day, this is about whether or not an eyeball network should be able to double-dip and force content providers to increase their costs in order to subsidize lower pricing for residential broadband services. Allowing that to happen comes with a number of negative side effects, not the least of which is it creates a barrier to competition on the content side.
Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be recognized as being mostly posturing for position.
On this, we agree. However, overall, I think that the access networks are the ones trying to do real and lasting harm to the consumers in the equation, which is a long standing tradition among $CABLECO and $TELCO type organizations, most of whom operate more like law firms than communications companies. Owen
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there and fix it?
Hi Miles, The telephone companies offer a remarkably apt case study in how NOT to do traffic hand off. With the advent of CLECs, the incumbent phone companies fought tooth and nail against simple settlement-free interconnection. They were deathly afraid of CLECs wiring up office buildings at a discount and then stranding the ILECs with the more expensive residential and small users. They convinced the FCC to dictate an originator-pays strategy where both companies must assure sufficient capacity between their systems and then the originating system pays the receiving system a couple pennies a minute. So sure, wire up all those office buildings. They're going to mainly call our customers and we'll collect the money from you instead. As you can imagine, hilarity ensued: some CLECs actually paid Internet Service Providers to accept PRIs because the PRIs only ever received calls and they tended to be heavily used 24 hours a day. The CLECs got their entire revenue from per-minute charges the ILECs had insisted the FCC require. Modern arrangements between CLECs and ILECs are somewhat less insane. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone.
The USF worked great until the Clinton administration re-purposed it to buy computers for rural schools. Now it's just another tax. Before that, the basic idea was that every phone line paid in a fixed amount every month and then when a phone company installed an expensive rural line, they recovered the excess cost from the fund. This made high-density urban lines cost neutral compared to low density rural lines, making rural service desirable for the service provider. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. The USF worked great until the Clinton administration re-purposed it to buy computers for rural schools. Now it's just another tax.
Before that, the basic idea was that every phone line paid in a fixed amount every month and then when a phone company installed an expensive rural line, they recovered the excess cost from the fund. This made high-density urban lines cost neutral compared to low density rural lines, making rural service desirable for the service provider.
Agree - a better idea in theory than practice. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes:
Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many negative side-effects result.
In this case, though, this isn't quite right, is it? There are a bunch of different ways to get Netflix to an eyeball ISP's customers. It seems like right now, Verizon is using one of the ways which is both expensive and poor quality: settlement-free peering with Netflix's transit provider. But, they have other options: direct peering with Netflix and/or using Netflix's cache architecture. These seem like they should, overall, cost less than the current arrangement, and probably would reduce costs and improve performance for everyone involved. That's where the posturing comes in. See, you'll notice Verizon actually made two arguments for why they weren't going to fix their capacity problem with Netflix. One was that Netflix is an exceptionally huge traffic source and unexpectedly dropped this traffic load on Verizon through a path that wasn't prepared for it. That's a semi-reasonable argument for why Netflix should contribute to improving the situation; it's not like this is really unexpected, or that Netflix hasn't offered to contribute, but it's reasonable to have a negotiation about who pays for what. The other argument was essentially "Netflix sends us more data than we send them". As others have commented, that's nonsense. But the reason for trying this argument is the old settlement-free peering problem: Verizon does not want Netflix as a peer if it can possibly have Netflix as a paying customer, and so it has an incentive to place obstacles in its path; and it certainly doesn't want to give everyone else the idea that they can become peers too. That is the real problem here and is why this has become a huge fight instead of a really straightforward transaction.
On 7/11/2014 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there and fix it?
One might answer, "of course not." It's a legitimate position, and by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes.
Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. This is also legitimate, and by this argument, Verizon should be paying to improve service out to Netflix.
If you're a competitor to the monopoly then you don't get access to those funds. It sucks for you, but that's just how it works. The county/state government has determined that they need to pay someone to make their network better in that region. They chose to pay the monopoly (whoever that is) and it wasn't you. It's the monopolies job to ensure good connectivity to Netflix. Oh, the monopoly is Comcast and they have a Netflix caching box but you don't? That is the cost of doing business in a rural market. You've got a few choices. Build out a fiber backbone to larger or more diverse markets, buy more transit, or go out of business. I service customers in small markets. Frequently they've got underpowered circuits because the incumbent won't sell MetroE or charges astronomical amounts for everything. If those were my only customers I'm not sure what I would do because I don't like their networks. I want to upgrade them but I'm being held back by various things. I've had situations where <Monopoly> entered a building at my expense to provide me fiber service so I could upgrade the users speed, then use that new fiber to undercut me on prices and take all the customers. People say the exclusive agreements for multi-dwelling units were bad for the little guy, but the truth is that the little guy could use exclusive agreements to allow the community to collective bargain for better internet. Now that those are gone, the competition is who can bribe the property manager more in pay-per-home connect fees.
Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many negative side-effects result.
No, it isn't. It's about monopolies telling a large company that isn't a monopoly that they need to pay them money to stay in business.
Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be recognized as being mostly posturing for position.
Miles Fidelman
On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Vitkovský Adam <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:35 AM
So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to reference).
At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my subscription to them."
Matt
I disagree as all of this makes perfect sense.
Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly. And you goes: so you would like to become our customer? Sure this is the monthly fee for the link and transport service that would suite your needs. And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal? What would be your answer?
Nope… It’d be totally wrong, and if I were Netflix, my response would be: No, I don’t want to be your customer. I want to work together with you as peers to improve the situation for our mutual customers. Which seems to be what Netflix is trying to do, having made a variety of attachment mechanisms readily available without charging the ISPs for any of them. Sure, the ISP may incur additional costs in reaching any of the available Netflix solutions, but none of that money is actually going to Netflix, unlike the ISPs attempt to get Netflix to subsidize their network to provide service to customers that are already paying them to receive Netflix (and other things). Owen
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes.
Hi Miles, Netflix is not your ISP. Verizon is. You pay Verizon to carry your packets to and from everybody else on the Internet, not just those folks they feel like connecting to. On the flip side, Netflix is NOT demanding payment from Verizon the way TV stations demand payment from cable and satellite companies. Netflix and their carriers have repeatedly offered to freely connect at multiple locations where Verizon already has facilities. One of these companies is demanding a second payment to provide the service they've already been paid for. One is not. The one demanding double-payment is unambiguously at fault. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Last I checked, it is eyeball network responsibility to adequately provision their transit capacity to support the demand of their customers, or find alternate solutions for the customers to be able to receive the service they are paying for (internet bandwidth to/from the sites they choose to visit). Anything outside of that like direct peering is icing on the cake and a way to serve lower latency or costs to the networks in question. This is all a smoke screen from the major eyeball players to cloud the fact that they intentionally do *not* adequately provision transit bandwidth to serve their customers what they are paying for. -Blake On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes.
Hi Miles,
Netflix is not your ISP. Verizon is. You pay Verizon to carry your packets to and from everybody else on the Internet, not just those folks they feel like connecting to.
On the flip side, Netflix is NOT demanding payment from Verizon the way TV stations demand payment from cable and satellite companies. Netflix and their carriers have repeatedly offered to freely connect at multiple locations where Verizon already has facilities.
One of these companies is demanding a second payment to provide the service they've already been paid for. One is not. The one demanding double-payment is unambiguously at fault.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
A little experimentation validates this: Traffic from my FIOS home router flows through alter.net and xo.net before hitting netflix. Now alter.net is now owned by Verizon, but when I run traceroutes, I see all the delays starting halfway through XO's network -- so why is nobody pointing a finger at XO?
Traceroute is pretty meaningless for analyzing if there is congestion or not. The presence of delays could mean many things that don't indicate congestion. Most large networks are well managed internally; congestion almost always appears at network edges. In this case, the assertion is that XO's link to Verizon is congested. If that is in fact the case, it's because Verizon is running it hot. Verizon is (presumably) an XO customer, and it is on them to increase capacity or do network engineering such that their links are upgraded or traffic shifted elsewhere. It's worth pointing out that if Verizon is running a transit link hot like this, Netflix is not the only traffic that's going to be impacted, and that is in no way Netflix' fault. Even if it is a peering link, their dispute should be with XO. What people seem to miss here is that there is no other out for $ISP than a) increase transit capacity, b) sufficiently peer with $CONTENT or c) allow performance to degrade (ie. Don't give customers what they are paying for). If we take c) off the table, it tells us that settlement-free peering would be the preferred alternative as it would usually cost less than buying more transit.
I'll also note that traffic to/from google, and youtube (also google of course) seems to flow FIOS - alter.net - google -- with no delays. So again, why aren't Netflix and Verizon pointing their fingers at XO.
Verizon (apparently) refuses to peer with Netflix, since Netflix has an open polic. They do, however, appear to peer with Google. Why?
This is the classic asymmetric peering situation - which raises a legitimate question of who's responsible for paying for the costs of transit service and interconnections?
If this were a question of Verizon transiting traffic for Netflix asymmetrically, then sure. However they are terminating the traffic in question, the only "transit" is to a paying Verizon customer on Verizon equipment; this is the part of the network their customer pays them to maintain.
And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't buying a direct feed into either alter.net or FIOS POPs, and/or making use of a caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis.
They likely can already meet easily at many points across the country, with little cost to either party. It is quite obvious that Netflix is very open to doing so. Why doesn't Verizon want to play? Apparently because they think they can successfully convince users that the problem is Netflix' and not Verizon's. Content peering with eyeballs should be a no-brainer - it saves both parties plenty of money and improves performance across the board. Netflix seems willing to bring their traffic to Verizon's edge for free, all Verizon needs to do is turn up the ports and build whatever capacity they would need to build anyway regardless of where the traffic comes from or what it is. Or, if the power and space is cheaper than the transport from where they meet (or to where they can meet), they can install Netflix' appliances. They always have the option of just buying more transit too, but the bottom line is that this expansion is required to carry their customer's traffic, it's not something they would be trying to charge content/transit for if it were organic traffic growth from diverse sources, they would simply upgrade their network like the rest of us. Keenan
Personally, I think Netflix is screwing the pooch on this one, and pointing the finger at Verizon as a convenient fall guy.
Miles Fidelman
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
In what world is Verizon an XO customer? But I think the whole premise of blaming XO is broken, just because your traceroute shows inbound to Netflix via XO does not mean Netflix is sending bits to you via XO. If you are sitting on AS701, Netflix certainly has many routes with aspath length = 2 (Transit, VZB) and its going to be pretty hard to know what path they are taking into VZB for yourself. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Keenan Tims <ktims@stargate.ca> wrote:
A little experimentation validates this: Traffic from my FIOS home router flows through alter.net and xo.net before hitting netflix. Now alter.net is now owned by Verizon, but when I run traceroutes, I see all the delays starting halfway through XO's network -- so why is nobody pointing a finger at XO?
Traceroute is pretty meaningless for analyzing if there is congestion or not. The presence of delays could mean many things that don't indicate congestion. Most large networks are well managed internally; congestion almost always appears at network edges.
In this case, the assertion is that XO's link to Verizon is congested. If that is in fact the case, it's because Verizon is running it hot. Verizon is (presumably) an XO customer, and it is on them to increase capacity or do network engineering such that their links are upgraded or traffic shifted elsewhere. It's worth pointing out that if Verizon is running a transit link hot like this, Netflix is not the only traffic that's going to be impacted, and that is in no way Netflix' fault. Even if it is a peering link, their dispute should be with XO.
What people seem to miss here is that there is no other out for $ISP than a) increase transit capacity, b) sufficiently peer with $CONTENT or c) allow performance to degrade (ie. Don't give customers what they are paying for). If we take c) off the table, it tells us that settlement-free peering would be the preferred alternative as it would usually cost less than buying more transit.
I'll also note that traffic to/from google, and youtube (also google of course) seems to flow FIOS - alter.net - google -- with no delays. So again, why aren't Netflix and Verizon pointing their fingers at XO.
Verizon (apparently) refuses to peer with Netflix, since Netflix has an open polic. They do, however, appear to peer with Google. Why?
This is the classic asymmetric peering situation - which raises a legitimate question of who's responsible for paying for the costs of transit service and interconnections?
If this were a question of Verizon transiting traffic for Netflix asymmetrically, then sure. However they are terminating the traffic in question, the only "transit" is to a paying Verizon customer on Verizon equipment; this is the part of the network their customer pays them to maintain.
And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't buying a direct feed into either alter.net or FIOS POPs, and/or making use of a caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis.
They likely can already meet easily at many points across the country, with little cost to either party. It is quite obvious that Netflix is very open to doing so. Why doesn't Verizon want to play? Apparently because they think they can successfully convince users that the problem is Netflix' and not Verizon's. Content peering with eyeballs should be a no-brainer - it saves both parties plenty of money and improves performance across the board. Netflix seems willing to bring their traffic to Verizon's edge for free, all Verizon needs to do is turn up the ports and build whatever capacity they would need to build anyway regardless of where the traffic comes from or what it is. Or, if the power and space is cheaper than the transport from where they meet (or to where they can meet), they can install Netflix' appliances. They always have the option of just buying more transit too, but the bottom line is that this expansion is required to carry their customer's traffic, it's not something they would be trying to charge content/transit for if it were organic traffic growth from diverse sources, they would simply upgrade their network like the rest of us.
Keenan
Personally, I think Netflix is screwing the pooch on this one, and
pointing the
finger at Verizon as a convenient fall guy.
Miles Fidelman
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix.
Now, just as a matter of principle, I tend to assume that anything VZN says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the Real World... but I did in fact read it.
Yup.
The money quote:
One might wonder why Netflix and its transit providers were the only ones that ran into congestion issues. What it boils down to is this: these other transit and content providers took steps to ensure that there was adequate capacity for their traffic to enter our network.
Translation: if Netflix is paying Comcast, why not pay us(Verizon) ? Rubens
Verizon Policy Blog wrote:
There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the edge of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network.
In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone else's network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with and how it announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely in control of traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those transit providers is congested, this is something Verizon, as a responsible network operator, is surely aware of and has the capability to resolve. This is difficult, if even possible, for a source network operator to work around. This post is complete technical FUD. --Blake
On 7/11/14 11:20 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
Verizon Policy Blog wrote:
There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the edge of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network.
In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone else's network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with and how it announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely in control of traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those transit providers is congested, this is something Verizon, as a responsible network operator, is surely aware of and has the capability to resolve. This is difficult, if even possible, for a source network operator to work around.
CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de etré. If a pop has 174 3356 2914 7992 transit(s) chances are they can use any one of them or all of them to get to foo other large transit as.
This post is complete technical FUD.
--Blake
joel jaeggli wrote the following on 7/11/2014 1:39 PM:
On 7/11/14 11:20 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
Verizon Policy Blog wrote:
There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the edge of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network. In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone else's network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with and how it announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely in control of traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those transit providers is congested, this is something Verizon, as a responsible network operator, is surely aware of and has the capability to resolve. This is difficult, if even possible, for a source network operator to work around. CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de etré.
If a pop has 174 3356 2914 7992 transit(s) chances are they can use any one of them or all of them to get to foo other large transit as.
Yes, but no matter which network Netflix uses as an exit from their network, Verizon still has the final say on how it enters Verizon's network. If Netflix has several transit providers to choose from, at best they can try each one and see what delivers the best experience to their mutual customers. Of course, Verizon might change their routing policy tomorrow (or on-demand) and throw that all out of whack. My point is that Verizon advertises several ways to reach Verizon's network. If one path is 'inneficient' as Verizon states, Verizon is at fault for announcing that inefficient path. Netflix does not dictate Verizon's border routing policy, contrary to Verizon's claims. --Blake
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
joel jaeggli wrote the following on 7/11/2014 1:39 PM:
CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de etré.
they do this with DNS changes for client requests... pushing a customer to an endpoint reachable across one path vs another. (added for clarification only)
If a pop has 174 3356 2914 7992 transit(s) chances are they can use any one of them or all of them to get to foo other large transit as.
Yes, but no matter which network Netflix uses as an exit from their network, Verizon still has the final say on how it enters Verizon's network. If
not really? verizon's held (for relationships they call 'settlement free interconnects') to a standard that includes essentially equal announcements across all common interconnects. Ideally this means vzb announces all 10,123 routes across all of the interconnects between 701 and network B...
Netflix has several transit providers to choose from, at best they can try each one and see what delivers the best experience to their mutual
yup, netflix has some idea that "At time T path X-Y-Z-701 is better than A-B-C-701" so they force some set of customers across this path as best they can by telling these customers taht X-Y-Z-701.stream.netflix.net == 1.2.3.4 is the right name/address mapping for the content requested. If something happens during the dns TTL / decision process to change DNS with traffic across the X-Y-Z-701 path though... it's not clear to me that netflix can affect those active streams. If the pathway goes away sure things shift around, if the path just gets congested... whoops. On top of this, there are lots of folk over the peering-wars-years that have shown they can influence peering discussions one way or the other by pushing traffic across distinct points in the as graph, then making press-hay about the mistreatment they are receiving. (NOTE NOTE NOTE: I have no idea if that's going on, I'm just making the point that this very clearly has happened in the past with other players)
customers. Of course, Verizon might change their routing policy tomorrow (or on-demand) and throw that all out of whack. My point is that Verizon advertises several ways to reach Verizon's network. If one path is 'inneficient' as Verizon states, Verizon is at fault for announcing that inefficient path. Netflix does not dictate Verizon's border routing policy, contrary to Verizon's claims.
it's not the inefficiency of the path, it's the (probably, maybe) difference in capacity available vs other/alternate paths. -chris
joel jaeggli wrote the following on 7/11/2014 1:39 PM:
CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de etré.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote: they do this with DNS changes for client requests... pushing a customer to an endpoint reachable across one path vs another. (added for clarification only) client requests are typically directed to a pop or distributed between
On 7/11/14 2:01 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: pops using DNS based GTM, There are other methods (e.g. anycast selection). Exit selection from a pop is a forwarding decision. Assuming the availability of multiple paths, they choose which one to use. this may be simple best path, ecmp coin flipping, deliberately tuned metrics or so on... if 174 is having a bad day on the east coast for example you might to chose to favor 3356 as a path to foo large as. You might favor a decision which costs you the least as opposed to the one that offers the best performance.
If a pop has 174 3356 2914 7992 transit(s) chances are they can use any one of them or all of them to get to foo other large transit as.
Yes, but no matter which network Netflix uses as an exit from their network, Verizon still has the final say on how it enters Verizon's network. If
foo large AS can engage in traffic engineering that would bias one path selection vs another. Foo Large ASes peers has a distinct incentive to offload traffic bound for foo large as quickly as possible, and will do so at their earliest convenience. so the BGP traffic engineering the influence inbound path selection for the prefix being announced by foo large AS may not be the most influential decision (unless the withdraw it). They can of course deliberately constrain the path, engage in quos marking and queue management to the detriment of the traffic, or I suppose just drop it on the floor, but the later would generally be characterized as an outage.
not really? verizon's held (for relationships they call 'settlement free interconnects') to a standard that includes essentially equal announcements across all common interconnects. Ideally this means vzb announces all 10,123 routes across all of the interconnects between 701 and network B...
Netflix has several transit providers to choose from, at best they can try each one and see what delivers the best experience to their mutual yup, netflix has some idea that "At time T path X-Y-Z-701 is better than A-B-C-701" so they force some set of customers across this path as best they can by telling these customers taht X-Y-Z-701.stream.netflix.net == 1.2.3.4 is the right name/address mapping for the content requested.
If something happens during the dns TTL / decision process to change DNS with traffic across the X-Y-Z-701 path though... it's not clear to me that netflix can affect those active streams. If the pathway goes away sure things shift around, if the path just gets congested... whoops.
On top of this, there are lots of folk over the peering-wars-years that have shown they can influence peering discussions one way or the other by pushing traffic across distinct points in the as graph, then making press-hay about the mistreatment they are receiving.
(NOTE NOTE NOTE: I have no idea if that's going on, I'm just making the point that this very clearly has happened in the past with other players)
customers. Of course, Verizon might change their routing policy tomorrow (or on-demand) and throw that all out of whack. My point is that Verizon advertises several ways to reach Verizon's network. If one path is 'inneficient' as Verizon states, Verizon is at fault for announcing that inefficient path. Netflix does not dictate Verizon's border routing policy, contrary to Verizon's claims. it's not the inefficiency of the path, it's the (probably, maybe) difference in capacity available vs other/alternate paths.
-chris
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:20:21PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:
Verizon Policy Blog wrote:
There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the edge of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network.
In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone else's network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with and how it announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely in control of traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those transit providers is congested, this is something Verizon, as a responsible network operator, is surely aware of and has the capability to resolve. This is difficult, if even possible, for a source network operator to work around.
I think what this highlights is the possible risks and troubles with the different markets at play. Consumer vs "Enterprise" vs SMB vs "wholesale". These are discrete market segments and when there is a company that participates in some of them those growth curves look vastly different from each other. If the 80% rule is right I hear brandied about (80% of traffic is some form of video either amazon, youtube, netflix, hulu, redbox, etc..) that's different from an office network network pattern. I think we all know this, but not everyone I know translates this into a business case or practice. for me personally, the larger question is: If Verizon and Netflix have done a commercial deal (as reported in the press) what is holding up the installation of those ports? Of course, I'm not party to the discussions between the companies but do see it as interesting the dueling in the press/blogosphere. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On Thu, July 10, 2014 8:01 pm, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix.
(...)
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelli...
And today, Level 3 responds: http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/ BRB, I need to make some popcorn. Jima
participants (62)
-
Aaron C. de Bruyn -
Ahad Aboss -
Barry Shein -
Blake Dunlap -
Blake Hudson -
Brett Glass -
Brian Loveland -
Ca By -
charles＠thefnf.org -
Christopher Morrow -
Collin Anderson -
Dave Bell -
Dave Crocker -
Dave Temkin -
deleskie＠gmail.com -
Doug Barton -
Eliot Lear -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Fred Baker (fred) -
Gary Buhrmaster -
Geoffrey Keating -
George Herbert -
Graham Donaldson -
Harlan Stenn -
Jared Mauch -
Jason Iannone -
Jay Ashworth -
Jim Popovitch -
Jima -
Jimmy Hess -
joel jaeggli -
John Curran -
John Osmon -
Joly MacFie -
Keenan Tims -
Keith Medcalf -
manning -
manning bill -
Matt Palmer -
Matthew Petach -
Michael Conlen -
Michael Hallgren -
Michael Thomas -
Miles Fidelman -
Naslund, Steve -
Owen DeLong -
Paul S. -
Pete Carah -
Randy Bush -
Ray Soucy -
Richard Bennett -
Rob Seastrom -
Robert Drake -
Rubens Kuhl -
rwebb＠ropeguru.com -
Sam Silvester -
Scott Helms -
Tei -
Trent Farrell -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Vitkovský Adam -
William Herrin