3 ms·

I recommend reading the Peering Playback. It will open your eyes to the reality of the situation. It sounds like you want lower prices, that’s fine, but don’t l

I recommend reading the Peering Playback. It will open your eyes to the reality of the situation. It sounds like you want lower prices, that’s fine, but don’t latch onto the swill that cloudflare are peddling. It’s a super distorted, self-interested view. In fact, given the scale disparity, peering with Cloudflare likely increases AWS’s marginal costs. Ultimately, Cloudflare are a rent-seeking middleman, and antithetical to the end-to-end architecture to boot.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> In fact, given the scale disparity, peering with Cloudflare likely increases AWS’s marginal costs. Look, I don't care how it's done at a technical level. If they'd like to just stop charging so much, with no routing changes, that's fine too. The problem is that I can get full transit service for a tiny fraction of what AWS charges for egress. I want a competitive price. And I don't care how selfish cloudflare is being while they highlight a real problem with AWS that's been obvious for many years. Their selfishness doesn't make what they're saying 'swill' either. And it's pretty hard to distort "this is how much egress costs to supply, rounding up. this is how much amazon charges.". Is their number egregiously wrong? It's reasonably in line with what I've researched in the past.
- inopinatus 5y ago
  > I can get full transit service for a tiny fraction of what AWS charges for egress. That is rather the point: all you get is a full transit service, and the false equivalence is palpable. I'm very much reminded of the equally fictitious comparisons made between EC2 and Hetzner, or racking up white-box servers. > I don't care how it's done at a technical level That is not something I would personally recommend bragging about on this forum, especially when it leads to sleepwalking into accepting a snake-oil salesman's contrived misrepresentations.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > That is rather the point: all you get is a full transit service, and the false equivalence is palpable. False equivalence how? AWS's offering isn't better, it's just expensive. > That is not something I would personally recommend bragging about on this forum, especially when it leads to sleepwalking into accepting a snake-oil salesman's contrived misrepresentations. 1. What a rude way to interpret what I said. I don't have a preference between different options to deliver data that all work fine. I'm interested to know what happens, but it doesn't affect my purchasing. 2. Nothing you've said backs up the idea of this being "snake oil". They're not making any promises about amazing products that can't be delivered. They're just asking for a price change on an existing product. That doesn't even resemble snake oil.
    - inopinatus 5y ago
      You’re not buying transit from AWS. This pig-headed insistence on comparing things that are not alike, and then complaining when called out for disregarding the details, doesn’t warrant further comment.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        You haven't named a single difference. You insist on vaguely insulting me and ignoring me when I ask why they should be treated differently. They're both delivering packets from a datacenter in a specific spot to anywhere on the planet. They're charged based on different metrics, but it's easy to make a rough translation between those metrics. I ask if the numbers are wrong, you insult me. I ask why it's a false equivalence, you insult me. And you think I'm the one not contributing to this conversation?

Dylan16807 5y ago

> In fact, given the scale disparity, peering with Cloudflare likely increases AWS’s marginal costs. Look, I don't care how it's done at a technical level. If they'd like to just stop charging so much, with no routing changes, that's fine too. The problem is that I can get full transit service for a tiny fraction of what AWS charges for egress. I want a competitive price. And I don't care how selfish cloudflare is being while they highlight a real problem with AWS that's been obvious for many years. Their selfishness doesn't make what they're saying 'swill' either. And it's pretty hard to distort "this is how much egress costs to supply, rounding up. this is how much amazon charges.". Is their number egregiously wrong? It's reasonably in line with what I've researched in the past.

inopinatus 5y ago
> I can get full transit service for a tiny fraction of what AWS charges for egress. That is rather the point: all you get is a full transit service, and the false equivalence is palpable. I'm very much reminded of the equally fictitious comparisons made between EC2 and Hetzner, or racking up white-box servers. > I don't care how it's done at a technical level That is not something I would personally recommend bragging about on this forum, especially when it leads to sleepwalking into accepting a snake-oil salesman's contrived misrepresentations.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > That is rather the point: all you get is a full transit service, and the false equivalence is palpable. False equivalence how? AWS's offering isn't better, it's just expensive. > That is not something I would personally recommend bragging about on this forum, especially when it leads to sleepwalking into accepting a snake-oil salesman's contrived misrepresentations. 1. What a rude way to interpret what I said. I don't have a preference between different options to deliver data that all work fine. I'm interested to know what happens, but it doesn't affect my purchasing. 2. Nothing you've said backs up the idea of this being "snake oil". They're not making any promises about amazing products that can't be delivered. They're just asking for a price change on an existing product. That doesn't even resemble snake oil.
  - inopinatus 5y ago
    You’re not buying transit from AWS. This pig-headed insistence on comparing things that are not alike, and then complaining when called out for disregarding the details, doesn’t warrant further comment.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      You haven't named a single difference. You insist on vaguely insulting me and ignoring me when I ask why they should be treated differently. They're both delivering packets from a datacenter in a specific spot to anywhere on the planet. They're charged based on different metrics, but it's easy to make a rough translation between those metrics. I ask if the numbers are wrong, you insult me. I ask why it's a false equivalence, you insult me. And you think I'm the one not contributing to this conversation?