2 ms·

>You're assuming Verizon isn't over-subscribing all of their other peering connections too. The PR release linked as the topic of this thread claims it's only

>You're assuming Verizon isn't over-subscribing all of their other peering connections too. The PR release linked as the topic of this thread claims it's only 44% on the other connections. >Your analogy is broken because peering connections aren't like bridges. Expanding a bridge costs millions of dollars and can't reasonably be moved from where you build it. 10Gbps switch ports do not cost millions of dollars and can trivially be moved to a different peer if loads change. There isn't just one peering ports there are many many peering points. It's also cheap for Netflix to use another ISP who won't cram it down saturated peering points. Finally, if it's so cheap why won't LEVEL3 or Cogent pay 100% of the cost?

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> The PR release linked as the topic of this thread claims it's only 44% on the other connections. Percentages don't tell you anything. The fact that some 10Mbps link is at 23% utilization is of no utility. Neither is the capacity of links not connected to the relevant customers. The real question is, if Netflix used some other transit provider and their traffic went over some other Verizon links, wouldn't those links still get saturated? > There isn't just one peering ports there are many many peering points. ...and? > It's also cheap for Netflix to use another ISP who won't cram it down saturated peering points. If that were true then there would be no dispute.