3 ms·

I like the article overall but I don't understand the author's proposed solution. The issue as it stands is apparently a lack of peering, in that big ISPs are u

by xhrpost 12y ago

I like the article overall but I don't understand the author's proposed solution. The issue as it stands is apparently a lack of peering, in that big ISPs are using transit to reach large content providers rather than directly peering to those networks. So how would "kicking them out" for a maxed out connection work? If I buy transit from Level3 and my connection maxes out, I'm no longer allowed to be a customer of Level3?

logfromblammo 12y ago
I think the proposal is to simply sever the link when the peering connection saturates. The traffic out through the link from LazyISP is generating more traffic in through the link than the pipe can handle. LazyISP pretends that this is not their problem, that the Internet is somehow trying to shove its traffic through poor ol' LazyISP's pipes. The claim is analogous to traffic exiting a Autobahn-style limited-access highway and attempting to reach its destination faster by taking the narrow country backroads to get to the on-ramp of the next highway. The only real reason for any traffic to route to LazyISP is if one of the endpoints is in there, and there is seldom a reason for that traffic to go anywhere but the shortest route between the end point and the nearest backbone highway access point. The typical argument from LazyISP is so ridiculous on its face that it makes me furious every time I see it. All of those guys present asymmetric upload and download speed to residential customers. Every last one of them. And they pretend that when all of their customers' asymmetric bandwidths are summed up, the total is somehow magically supposed to be symmetric. Every business on the planet whose cash flow depends on pushing bits out to the Internet goes directly to the backbone with content delivery networks, or at least to an ISP that is serious about peering. They are not going to an ISP with crappy interconnects. There is no way in hell that any cul-de-sac on the network map like a last-mile ISP is ever going to push as many bits to the backbone network as it pulls from it, especially when they do nasty tricks like throttling, port blocking, and hidden metering. The point is that a steaming pile like Time Warner does not have any internal content providers that any of its customers want to connect to, precisely because of its business practices. If Time Warner cannot connect to the Internet, it has nothing to offer the customer through that precious last mile connection except television channels. So they stop paying the $25-150 a month and try to make do with standing on a ridge waving semaphore flags at each other. LazyISP needs Level 3 more than Level 3 needs them. Therefore, when LazyISP tries to extort them, the correct response should be, "Fuck you," as they flip the off switch.
joshstrange 12y ago
I think he is saying that companies like Level3 should kill all peering with Comcast if they refuse to upgrade to more peering. At least temporally to get their attention and that of their customers that is.
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  Not all peering, just peering at certain key sites (12 specific sites).

by xhrpost 12y ago

logfromblammo 12y ago

I think the proposal is to simply sever the link when the peering connection saturates. The traffic out through the link from LazyISP is generating more traffic in through the link than the pipe can handle. LazyISP pretends that this is not their problem, that the Internet is somehow trying to shove its traffic through poor ol' LazyISP's pipes. The claim is analogous to traffic exiting a Autobahn-style limited-access highway and attempting to reach its destination faster by taking the narrow country backroads to get to the on-ramp of the next highway. The only real reason for any traffic to route to LazyISP is if one of the endpoints is in there, and there is seldom a reason for that traffic to go anywhere but the shortest route between the end point and the nearest backbone highway access point. The typical argument from LazyISP is so ridiculous on its face that it makes me furious every time I see it. All of those guys present asymmetric upload and download speed to residential customers. Every last one of them. And they pretend that when all of their customers' asymmetric bandwidths are summed up, the total is somehow magically supposed to be symmetric. Every business on the planet whose cash flow depends on pushing bits out to the Internet goes directly to the backbone with content delivery networks, or at least to an ISP that is serious about peering. They are not going to an ISP with crappy interconnects. There is no way in hell that any cul-de-sac on the network map like a last-mile ISP is ever going to push as many bits to the backbone network as it pulls from it, especially when they do nasty tricks like throttling, port blocking, and hidden metering. The point is that a steaming pile like Time Warner does not have any internal content providers that any of its customers want to connect to, precisely because of its business practices. If Time Warner cannot connect to the Internet, it has nothing to offer the customer through that precious last mile connection except television channels. So they stop paying the $25-150 a month and try to make do with standing on a ridge waving semaphore flags at each other. LazyISP needs Level 3 more than Level 3 needs them. Therefore, when LazyISP tries to extort them, the correct response should be, "Fuck you," as they flip the off switch.

joshstrange 12y ago

I think he is saying that companies like Level3 should kill all peering with Comcast if they refuse to upgrade to more peering. At least temporally to get their attention and that of their customers that is.

Jtsummers 12y ago
Not all peering, just peering at certain key sites (12 specific sites).