10 ms·

> in this case, since Level3 is pushing more data, they would be the ones paying No. That's not how the internet works. Nobody PUSHES data. People PULL data

> in this case, since Level3 is pushing more data, they would be the ones paying No. That's not how the internet works. Nobody PUSHES data. People PULL data. Verizon has customers who pay for internet access. Those customers make REQUESTS to Netflix for data and Netflix RESPONDS with data. They happen to be streaming movies which use a lot of bandwidth, but on average it's about 3Mbps per concurrent stream. That is WELL below the 25/3 or 50/5 or 100/10 that Verizon advertises for purchase. If someone were pushing data it would be called a DoS or DDoS. An attack is when someone sends unrequested data to try and break your network. But this data isn't unrequested. Verizon's customers have requested it from Netflix as they are within their rights to do since they have literally paid for it. This is Verizon wanting to bill their customers once and then their customers' vendors as well. Double billing for a single service is a neat trick if you can pull it off. But it tends not to engender goodwill.

angersock 12y ago
Well put. Yours is probably the clearest explanation I've seen of why this all feels so icky.
moultano 12y ago
As I like to say it, saying that Neflix uses a lot of bandwidth is like saying that the Hetch Hetchy uses a lot of water pipes.
sheetjs 12y ago
You still haven't refuted the point. This isn't about the relationship between Verizon and its customers, at all. The agreement between Level3 and Verizon probably has some balanced traffic requirement, with penalties for asymmetry. If that is the case, then the nature of the imbalance would force Level3 to make payments to Verizon. Verizon gave a very clear suggestion for Netflix: work with other providers as well. If Netflix worked with the overwhelming majority of third party providers, then you could argue that Verizon is not playing fair. But I don't see any commentary that Netflix is actually working with most of the third party providers.
- chrisBob 12y ago
  I know the answer to this one! We need these guys to setup at the other end of a Level3 link, and then Verizon customers can push them one byte for each byte they get from Netflix: http://devnull-as-a-service.com http://devnull-as-a-service.com Imbalance fixed, but I don't think that is what Verizon wants.
  - btown 12y ago
    Seriously though: what if Netflix worked with Level3 to set up an efficient Level3-owned /dev/null server in the carrier hotel AND have every Netflix client that connects over Verizon upload random bits to that IP address whenever buffering is complete or the movie is paused? Then the rates would balance out, and Verizon would no longer have a contractual excuse to NOT hook up those cables to the Level3 endpoint. The only way for Verizon to mitigate this would be to deny their end users the upstream bandwidth they've paid for but are not using (cue user outcry), or to smear Netflix even more so than they're already doing (cue more chances for the PR to backfire). Verizon would hate Level3 for this, but they already do, and they couldn't do anything about it without denying their end users Netflix access altogether! Of course, since the NSA would need to listen in on all that new random-bit traffic (since Netflix is obviously the new Skype in the terror playbook), taxes would need to rise significantly in order to pay for more NSA bulk-data-collection servers. But that's just the cost of living in America...
- lstamour 12y ago
  Then how would you explain Verizon's refusal to host Netflix content inside its network that's under-utilized? Seems to me it's a win-win for everyone, including poor border routers. Except Verizon then wouldn't make an extra penny from that efficiency, hmm?
- moultano 12y ago
  It is entirely about the relationship between Verizon and their customers. Verizon's customers want these interlinks, they just don't know it. This whole thing started when Netflix posted a message to their customers explaining it. Verizon is trying to defend themselves against the complaints of their customers.
Someone1234 12y ago
I have three questions: Instead of double billing (i.e. subscriber + content providers) couldn't Verizon just increase their subscriber rates to cover their perceived increased costs? Could Netflix pay Verizon's ransom and then charge Verizon customers a "Verizon Tax" of sorts? Claiming that Verizon charges Netflix at extra e.g. $1/subscriber/month to peer? Would it be legal for Verizon to literally just cut off Netflix? Just return an access denied to their subscribers.
- fixermark 12y ago
  (3) I actually don't know off the top of my head. (1) would certainly be doable, but it's something Verizon wants to avoid because in most markets they're in a duopoly (often with Xfinity, sometimes with a local provider). Much like two gas stations across the street from each other often having identical prices, Verizon doesn't want to be perceived as costing more for the same service as the alternative. For (2), Netflix could almost certainly do that, but I assume they'd prefer to not pass any cost onto consumers (because, really, they're making a stand against this business practice by Verizon being fair play at all). Among other reasons, if it's seen that Netflix is willing to pay a "ransom," other carriers may try to increase their contracted costs.
- unchocked 12y ago
  Respectively, yes, yes in the absence of network neutrality, and yes in the absence of network neutrality. We think of ISPs as selling us data, but the big ones have realized they can make more money as data market makers. This whole kerfuffle is just them trying to see if they can get away with it. Because they're effectively monopolies on the last mile, it's important that they fail here.
- wmf 12y ago
  couldn't Verizon just increase their subscriber rates to cover their perceived increased costs? Verizon already increases prices x% per year, so maybe. But for every price increase there are some number of customers who will cancel or downgrade to a lower plan. (Alternately, Verizon could decrease their profits.) Could Netflix pay Verizon's ransom and then charge Verizon customers a "Verizon Tax" of sorts? Sure, but some percentage of Netflix customers would cancel. Would it be legal for Verizon to literally just cut off Netflix? Considering that the FCC is debating Net Neutrality right now, that would be a very bad idea.
oldmanjay 12y ago
It doesn't take too much away from your point, but people do "push" data outside the context of an attack. IP is not a request/response protocol like HTTP.
- msandford 12y ago
  Agreed, it's technically possible. In practice it almost never happens. And even when it does it might TECHNICALLY be a push but from a very high level perspective it might still be a pull. As an example I use a website (like Facebook or something) which does live auto-updating. Under the hood it's something like WebSockets or SocketIO and the server does send datagrams to me without me specifically requesting those individual data packets. I couldn't request them, I didn't even know about them until they arrived! But while that technically is "push" from a high level it's still "pull" in that Facebook (or whoever) doesn't just start sending them to me for giggles. It doesn't start happening until I visit their site, and it stops happening fairly shortly after I navigate away from it. Their computers don't unilaterally send packets to me. I request them by continuing to execute the javascript that their servers sent to me when I loaded the page. Once I stop executing it, the connection is closed and the messages stop.
rhino369 12y ago
PUSH and PULL don't really describe how it works. Its the senders responsibility to deliver data to the local ISP of the recipient. It doesn't matter if the person asked for the data, you still have to pay to get it there. The issue is that Verizon is both a national transit provider and a local ISP. If you just dump your data on the nearest Verizon peering port, you aren't fulfilling your end of the bargain. You are asking Verizon to do it for you, as a transit provider. However, if you are delivering it to the last mile, you have "paid for it" it already. The issue is where are these congestion issues occurring. At the last mile or at the edges of Verizon's transit network. Verizon absolutely has the right to bill for providing transit.
- simcop2387 12y ago
  The question then becomes does the contract Verizon have for peering with other transit providers allow them to charge the other transit customers for that? And if they do what's to stop every transit provider from charging every other transit provider's customers for the same thing? And then the all important question, SHOULD they be stopped from doing it? The current structure of the internet was built around this not happening that way, but is that the way it should be? I strongly believe that letting it happen would cause many other political and routing problems for the internet as a whole to the point where it'll end up being regulated against doing it that way anyway. It could also end up then as a zero sum game between all the transit providers ending "free" peering agreements.
- malchow 12y ago
  It's a fair distinction. Here, I believe, the movie is going AWS Seattle to L3 to the front door of Verizon's consumer network in LA, and Netflix is paying for it all the way to the front door. Is that accurate? Or no?
  - msandford 12y ago
    Normally I pay for transit from my house to my ISPs peering points. And other service providers pay their ISPs for transit from their "houses" to the same peering points. In this case Netflix is being forced to pay for transit from their "house" all the way to mine. Not how the internet normally works.
netdog 12y ago
> That's not how the internet works. Nobody PUSHES data. People PULL data. There's more to "the Internet" than just "the WWW". While HTTP could be considered a "pull data" protocol, there's plenty of application protocols which involve "pushing" data over TCP/IP transport.
- msandford 12y ago
  Yes I'm aware. But the vast majority of traffic happens as a result of a request of some kind. In other words Netflix doesn't start streaming data to me for the hell of it. Pandora doesn't stream songs to my computer unless I hit play. Songs don't get downloaded from iTunes unless I request them and pay for them. This is in contrast to the mail that the USPS delivers to my door. I don't ask for most of it and I have to sort through it and throw all the bullshit away. I guess what I mean is that most internet traffic is based on consent of some kind. While paper mail is not. I might not specifically request any particular bits but the majority don't show up unannounced and unwanted. > there's plenty of application protocols which involve "pushing" data over TCP/IP transpor Right but by the time a TCP link is established you've already setup a session which can't be done unilaterally. That is akin to consent and quite possibly a request. You can't be "data-raped" because if you decline the TCP session that's the end of it. Someone can send a billion request to initiate TCP sessions but they can't initiate without your (or your computer's) consent. Given the router/firewalls that basically everyone has between their modems and their computers it's getting very, very difficult to send data to residential ISP customers without their express or implied consent.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    TCP/IP includes UDP and IP. It's quite trivial to "data-rape"; that's what [D]DoS is.
    - msandford 12y ago
      TCP quite literally is NOT UDP. You can do TCP over IP and you can do UDP over IP. But under NO circumstances could you claim to do UDP over TCP/IP. Were Netflix performing this "data rape" of Verizon's network it would be huge news as a DoS/DDoS attack. But that's not what we're hearing. CAN people perform attacks? Yes absolutely and it requires no consent. But without some kind of consent it's regarded as an attack rather than as legitimate network traffic.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Alupis 12y ago
1) Level3 has offered to split the cost with the Big5 ISP's of upgrading their infrastructure.[1] * This would increase throughput and capacity for both Level3 and the consumer networks. 2) Netflix has offered free Open Connect Appliances to all major ISP's.[2] * This would allow consumer networks to only download a video once, then serve it up locally within their network to all their customers. In-network traffic is almost free for the ISP's. 3) Netflix has offered to change their entire distribution model into a P2P model.[3] * This would allow consumer networks to only download a video once, then serve it up locally within their network to all customers. In-network traffic is almost free for ISP's. . All of these options have been flat-out refused. The Big5 ISP's are purely after the money. There is no other compromise for them. [1] http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-played-child-isps-internet/ http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-play... [2] https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware [3] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/netflix-researching-large-scale-peer-to-peer-technology-for-streaming/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/netfli...
- ctdonath 12y ago
  From elsewhere on HN: All of Netflix, in HD, on 24TB. Netflix could solve the bandwidth problem by just mailing the whole library to customers. "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magnetic tapes."
  - grecy 12y ago
    Netflix offer this as an option to any ISP that wants it, free. They will put a server in a data center anywhere an ISP wants, and they'll manage the whole syncing thing so the ISP doesn't even know it's there. After that, all content comes from that cache.
  - mb0 12y ago
    To clarify Grecy's statement, netflix offers openconnect[1] for to ISPs as a caching mechanism, and the box contains about 108TB of disk capacity[2]. The boxes are sent to ISPs instead of customers though. [1] https://www.netflix.com/openconnect https://www.netflix.com/openconnect [2] https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jimktrains2 12y ago
> No. That's not how the internet works. Nobody PUSHES data. People PULL data. To be pedantic curl -d test example.com would push data across the internet.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  Downvotes? The person I responded to said you can't push data, you can very well push data without the other end initiating it. I specifically mentioned that you can do it with an HTTP POST (using curl as the UA).
  - msandford 12y ago
    In order for you to "push" as you're calling it, the server that you're "pushing" data to has to ACCEPT your connection attempt. If it doesn't accept the connection your push goes nowhere. Imagine the webserver is down or the port is blocked. In that case the TCP session doesn't get initiated and you're unable to send the data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#Connection_establishment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#C... EDIT: Considering that most consumer ISPs don't allow their customers to run servers (Google Fiber is an exception) it would be very very difficult for someone to successfully "push" data to consumers. And that's only if I'm willing to accept your definition of push, which I'm not.
    - jimktrains2 12y ago
      It would only have to accept it with TCP. I could do an equivalent thing with UDP and just send data anywhere I want. (Remember the poster said the internet and not HTTP.) Also, that has nothing to do with the point that "pushing isn't a thing on the internet" is a poor way of describing the problem being described, especially since the poster said the internet and not consumer's using their ISP (which still isn't strictly true, but is at least closer to the idea of the asymmetry in most consumer and business interent connections). That doesn't negate the point that consumers download much more data than they upload. When I say something incorrect, I expect to be corrected. I attempted to correct something that was factually wrong and don't believe I was mean while doing so.
windexh8er 12y ago
> If someone were pushing data it would be called a DoS or DDoS. An attack is when someone sends unrequested data to try and break your network. Not always. Backup is popular today - as I look at my simple home utilization I push about 30% of the ingress up to "somewhere". > Double billing for a single service is a neat trick if you can pull it off. This is how every communications network has been ideally built from the beginning and this "trick" has been played out time and time again starting starting with the PSTN. It's not uncommon, but is also isn't ideal - unless you are the carrier.
- macspoofing 12y ago
  >Not always. Backup is popular today - as I look at my simple home utilization I push about 30% of the ingress up to "somewhere". You're equivocating on 'push' and 'pull'. Under OPs definition, a 'pull' is a customer's valid usage of the service, while a 'push' is something like unwanted or unrequested data transfer from a 3rd party. This definition is a little muddled when you talk about uploads but it should be easily understood. You uploading your backup data is you merely using the service you paid for, even though you're 'pushing' data somewhere.
  - msandford 12y ago
    Furthermore, it's not as though the backup company doesn't want the data and you're trying to cram it down their throats anyhow. Are you using more upload that download while doing the backup? Yes. Is the backup company's server sending ACKs to let your client know to continue sending data? Also yes.
ugh123 12y ago
>No. That's not how the internet works. Nobody PUSHES data. People PULL data. Uh, I don't think he meant it the way you took it. I think he knows how network traffic works.

angersock 12y ago

Well put. Yours is probably the clearest explanation I've seen of why this all feels so icky.

moultano 12y ago

As I like to say it, saying that Neflix uses a lot of bandwidth is like saying that the Hetch Hetchy uses a lot of water pipes.

sheetjs 12y ago

You still haven't refuted the point. This isn't about the relationship between Verizon and its customers, at all. The agreement between Level3 and Verizon probably has some balanced traffic requirement, with penalties for asymmetry. If that is the case, then the nature of the imbalance would force Level3 to make payments to Verizon. Verizon gave a very clear suggestion for Netflix: work with other providers as well. If Netflix worked with the overwhelming majority of third party providers, then you could argue that Verizon is not playing fair. But I don't see any commentary that Netflix is actually working with most of the third party providers.

chrisBob 12y ago
I know the answer to this one! We need these guys to setup at the other end of a Level3 link, and then Verizon customers can push them one byte for each byte they get from Netflix: http://devnull-as-a-service.com http://devnull-as-a-service.com Imbalance fixed, but I don't think that is what Verizon wants.
- btown 12y ago
  Seriously though: what if Netflix worked with Level3 to set up an efficient Level3-owned /dev/null server in the carrier hotel AND have every Netflix client that connects over Verizon upload random bits to that IP address whenever buffering is complete or the movie is paused? Then the rates would balance out, and Verizon would no longer have a contractual excuse to NOT hook up those cables to the Level3 endpoint. The only way for Verizon to mitigate this would be to deny their end users the upstream bandwidth they've paid for but are not using (cue user outcry), or to smear Netflix even more so than they're already doing (cue more chances for the PR to backfire). Verizon would hate Level3 for this, but they already do, and they couldn't do anything about it without denying their end users Netflix access altogether! Of course, since the NSA would need to listen in on all that new random-bit traffic (since Netflix is obviously the new Skype in the terror playbook), taxes would need to rise significantly in order to pay for more NSA bulk-data-collection servers. But that's just the cost of living in America...
lstamour 12y ago
Then how would you explain Verizon's refusal to host Netflix content inside its network that's under-utilized? Seems to me it's a win-win for everyone, including poor border routers. Except Verizon then wouldn't make an extra penny from that efficiency, hmm?
moultano 12y ago
It is entirely about the relationship between Verizon and their customers. Verizon's customers want these interlinks, they just don't know it. This whole thing started when Netflix posted a message to their customers explaining it. Verizon is trying to defend themselves against the complaints of their customers.

Someone1234 12y ago

I have three questions: Instead of double billing (i.e. subscriber + content providers) couldn't Verizon just increase their subscriber rates to cover their perceived increased costs? Could Netflix pay Verizon's ransom and then charge Verizon customers a "Verizon Tax" of sorts? Claiming that Verizon charges Netflix at extra e.g. $1/subscriber/month to peer? Would it be legal for Verizon to literally just cut off Netflix? Just return an access denied to their subscribers.

fixermark 12y ago
(3) I actually don't know off the top of my head. (1) would certainly be doable, but it's something Verizon wants to avoid because in most markets they're in a duopoly (often with Xfinity, sometimes with a local provider). Much like two gas stations across the street from each other often having identical prices, Verizon doesn't want to be perceived as costing more for the same service as the alternative. For (2), Netflix could almost certainly do that, but I assume they'd prefer to not pass any cost onto consumers (because, really, they're making a stand against this business practice by Verizon being fair play at all). Among other reasons, if it's seen that Netflix is willing to pay a "ransom," other carriers may try to increase their contracted costs.
unchocked 12y ago
Respectively, yes, yes in the absence of network neutrality, and yes in the absence of network neutrality. We think of ISPs as selling us data, but the big ones have realized they can make more money as data market makers. This whole kerfuffle is just them trying to see if they can get away with it. Because they're effectively monopolies on the last mile, it's important that they fail here.
wmf 12y ago
couldn't Verizon just increase their subscriber rates to cover their perceived increased costs? Verizon already increases prices x% per year, so maybe. But for every price increase there are some number of customers who will cancel or downgrade to a lower plan. (Alternately, Verizon could decrease their profits.) Could Netflix pay Verizon's ransom and then charge Verizon customers a "Verizon Tax" of sorts? Sure, but some percentage of Netflix customers would cancel. Would it be legal for Verizon to literally just cut off Netflix? Considering that the FCC is debating Net Neutrality right now, that would be a very bad idea.

oldmanjay 12y ago

It doesn't take too much away from your point, but people do "push" data outside the context of an attack. IP is not a request/response protocol like HTTP.

msandford 12y ago
Agreed, it's technically possible. In practice it almost never happens. And even when it does it might TECHNICALLY be a push but from a very high level perspective it might still be a pull. As an example I use a website (like Facebook or something) which does live auto-updating. Under the hood it's something like WebSockets or SocketIO and the server does send datagrams to me without me specifically requesting those individual data packets. I couldn't request them, I didn't even know about them until they arrived! But while that technically is "push" from a high level it's still "pull" in that Facebook (or whoever) doesn't just start sending them to me for giggles. It doesn't start happening until I visit their site, and it stops happening fairly shortly after I navigate away from it. Their computers don't unilaterally send packets to me. I request them by continuing to execute the javascript that their servers sent to me when I loaded the page. Once I stop executing it, the connection is closed and the messages stop.

rhino369 12y ago

PUSH and PULL don't really describe how it works. Its the senders responsibility to deliver data to the local ISP of the recipient. It doesn't matter if the person asked for the data, you still have to pay to get it there. The issue is that Verizon is both a national transit provider and a local ISP. If you just dump your data on the nearest Verizon peering port, you aren't fulfilling your end of the bargain. You are asking Verizon to do it for you, as a transit provider. However, if you are delivering it to the last mile, you have "paid for it" it already. The issue is where are these congestion issues occurring. At the last mile or at the edges of Verizon's transit network. Verizon absolutely has the right to bill for providing transit.

simcop2387 12y ago
The question then becomes does the contract Verizon have for peering with other transit providers allow them to charge the other transit customers for that? And if they do what's to stop every transit provider from charging every other transit provider's customers for the same thing? And then the all important question, SHOULD they be stopped from doing it? The current structure of the internet was built around this not happening that way, but is that the way it should be? I strongly believe that letting it happen would cause many other political and routing problems for the internet as a whole to the point where it'll end up being regulated against doing it that way anyway. It could also end up then as a zero sum game between all the transit providers ending "free" peering agreements.
malchow 12y ago
It's a fair distinction. Here, I believe, the movie is going AWS Seattle to L3 to the front door of Verizon's consumer network in LA, and Netflix is paying for it all the way to the front door. Is that accurate? Or no?
- msandford 12y ago
  Normally I pay for transit from my house to my ISPs peering points. And other service providers pay their ISPs for transit from their "houses" to the same peering points. In this case Netflix is being forced to pay for transit from their "house" all the way to mine. Not how the internet normally works.

netdog 12y ago

> That's not how the internet works. Nobody PUSHES data. People PULL data. There's more to "the Internet" than just "the WWW". While HTTP could be considered a "pull data" protocol, there's plenty of application protocols which involve "pushing" data over TCP/IP transport.

msandford 12y ago
Yes I'm aware. But the vast majority of traffic happens as a result of a request of some kind. In other words Netflix doesn't start streaming data to me for the hell of it. Pandora doesn't stream songs to my computer unless I hit play. Songs don't get downloaded from iTunes unless I request them and pay for them. This is in contrast to the mail that the USPS delivers to my door. I don't ask for most of it and I have to sort through it and throw all the bullshit away. I guess what I mean is that most internet traffic is based on consent of some kind. While paper mail is not. I might not specifically request any particular bits but the majority don't show up unannounced and unwanted. > there's plenty of application protocols which involve "pushing" data over TCP/IP transpor Right but by the time a TCP link is established you've already setup a session which can't be done unilaterally. That is akin to consent and quite possibly a request. You can't be "data-raped" because if you decline the TCP session that's the end of it. Someone can send a billion request to initiate TCP sessions but they can't initiate without your (or your computer's) consent. Given the router/firewalls that basically everyone has between their modems and their computers it's getting very, very difficult to send data to residential ISP customers without their express or implied consent.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  TCP/IP includes UDP and IP. It's quite trivial to "data-rape"; that's what [D]DoS is.
  - msandford 12y ago
    TCP quite literally is NOT UDP. You can do TCP over IP and you can do UDP over IP. But under NO circumstances could you claim to do UDP over TCP/IP. Were Netflix performing this "data rape" of Verizon's network it would be huge news as a DoS/DDoS attack. But that's not what we're hearing. CAN people perform attacks? Yes absolutely and it requires no consent. But without some kind of consent it's regarded as an attack rather than as legitimate network traffic.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Alupis 12y ago

1) Level3 has offered to split the cost with the Big5 ISP's of upgrading their infrastructure.[1] * This would increase throughput and capacity for both Level3 and the consumer networks. 2) Netflix has offered free Open Connect Appliances to all major ISP's.[2] * This would allow consumer networks to only download a video once, then serve it up locally within their network to all their customers. In-network traffic is almost free for the ISP's. 3) Netflix has offered to change their entire distribution model into a P2P model.[3] * This would allow consumer networks to only download a video once, then serve it up locally within their network to all customers. In-network traffic is almost free for ISP's. . All of these options have been flat-out refused. The Big5 ISP's are purely after the money. There is no other compromise for them. [1] http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-played-child-isps-internet/ http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-play... [2] https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware [3] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/netflix-researching-large-scale-peer-to-peer-technology-for-streaming/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/netfli...

ctdonath 12y ago
From elsewhere on HN: All of Netflix, in HD, on 24TB. Netflix could solve the bandwidth problem by just mailing the whole library to customers. "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magnetic tapes."
- grecy 12y ago
  Netflix offer this as an option to any ISP that wants it, free. They will put a server in a data center anywhere an ISP wants, and they'll manage the whole syncing thing so the ISP doesn't even know it's there. After that, all content comes from that cache.
- mb0 12y ago
  To clarify Grecy's statement, netflix offers openconnect[1] for to ISPs as a caching mechanism, and the box contains about 108TB of disk capacity[2]. The boxes are sent to ISPs instead of customers though. [1] https://www.netflix.com/openconnect https://www.netflix.com/openconnect [2] https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jimktrains2 12y ago

> No. That's not how the internet works. Nobody PUSHES data. People PULL data. To be pedantic curl -d test example.com would push data across the internet.

jimktrains2 12y ago
Downvotes? The person I responded to said you can't push data, you can very well push data without the other end initiating it. I specifically mentioned that you can do it with an HTTP POST (using curl as the UA).
- msandford 12y ago
  In order for you to "push" as you're calling it, the server that you're "pushing" data to has to ACCEPT your connection attempt. If it doesn't accept the connection your push goes nowhere. Imagine the webserver is down or the port is blocked. In that case the TCP session doesn't get initiated and you're unable to send the data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#Connection_establishment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#C... EDIT: Considering that most consumer ISPs don't allow their customers to run servers (Google Fiber is an exception) it would be very very difficult for someone to successfully "push" data to consumers. And that's only if I'm willing to accept your definition of push, which I'm not.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    It would only have to accept it with TCP. I could do an equivalent thing with UDP and just send data anywhere I want. (Remember the poster said the internet and not HTTP.) Also, that has nothing to do with the point that "pushing isn't a thing on the internet" is a poor way of describing the problem being described, especially since the poster said the internet and not consumer's using their ISP (which still isn't strictly true, but is at least closer to the idea of the asymmetry in most consumer and business interent connections). That doesn't negate the point that consumers download much more data than they upload. When I say something incorrect, I expect to be corrected. I attempted to correct something that was factually wrong and don't believe I was mean while doing so.

windexh8er 12y ago

> If someone were pushing data it would be called a DoS or DDoS. An attack is when someone sends unrequested data to try and break your network. Not always. Backup is popular today - as I look at my simple home utilization I push about 30% of the ingress up to "somewhere". > Double billing for a single service is a neat trick if you can pull it off. This is how every communications network has been ideally built from the beginning and this "trick" has been played out time and time again starting starting with the PSTN. It's not uncommon, but is also isn't ideal - unless you are the carrier.

macspoofing 12y ago
>Not always. Backup is popular today - as I look at my simple home utilization I push about 30% of the ingress up to "somewhere". You're equivocating on 'push' and 'pull'. Under OPs definition, a 'pull' is a customer's valid usage of the service, while a 'push' is something like unwanted or unrequested data transfer from a 3rd party. This definition is a little muddled when you talk about uploads but it should be easily understood. You uploading your backup data is you merely using the service you paid for, even though you're 'pushing' data somewhere.
- msandford 12y ago
  Furthermore, it's not as though the backup company doesn't want the data and you're trying to cram it down their throats anyhow. Are you using more upload that download while doing the backup? Yes. Is the backup company's server sending ACKs to let your client know to continue sending data? Also yes.

ugh123 12y ago

>No. That's not how the internet works. Nobody PUSHES data. People PULL data. Uh, I don't think he meant it the way you took it. I think he knows how network traffic works.