11–18 of 18 posts
Jesus Christ. This whole thing reminds me of when I was a kid and my divorced parents were having a legal battle over child support payments, and each one was telling me their version of how horrible the other parent was, and why they should get more money (like I had any say in the matter). It was transparently manipulative then, and it's transparently manipulative now. Can't anyone act like adults these days? Or is…
I'm going to go with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Level 3 is saying they'd be willing to pay for the cards, but not bandwidth, eg continue using the free peering agreement. Verizon is saying that Level 3 should pay for the bandwidth (probably way more costly than the cards), since they are already getting more than they are owed in the free peering agreement.
There is no bandwidth to pay for. This is settlement-free peering. Once you have the line cards, it's simply a matter of adding the physical cross-connects.
* Traffic for which both A and B are being paid by their respective customers
* Traffic for which A is being paid by the sender or recipient, but B is not paid
* Traffic for which B is being paid by the sender or recipient, but A is not paid
Currently, there is controversy over a large amount of traffic flowing like this:
Netflix -> Level 3 -> Verizon -> Consumers
Netflix -> Level 3 Verizon Verizon is in the process of switching to all-symmetric connections, so this is a little less absurd than it was a week ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no bandwidth to pay for. This is settlement-free peering. Once you have the line cards, it's simply a matter of adding the physical cross-connects.
Settlement free peering only happens if the traffic is balanced. In the case of Level3 and Verizon, it's not, hence Verizon's point (and apparently it was Level3's point when dealing with Cogent) is that the settlement free peering is not appropriate for such lop sided traffic and Level 3 needs to pay via alternative arrangement with Verizon.
This argument is regurgitated ad-nauseam and is selective ignorance. Let me repeat what has been repeated literally thousands of times: A ISP will not have the same ingress and egress traffic due to two reasons: 1. Download speed is usually more than upload speed, 2. There is nothing to peer with due to TOS / customers not running services. Verizon just wants to double dip and get more money, as a business with commi…
Fuck the cunts with their "commitment to shareholders" at the cost of society. The subhuman imbeciles running this show deserve nothing more than to be taken into an alley and shot. The same goes for the lobbyist cunts that make it all happen, since their entire business is "enrich myself at the cost of EVERYONE else."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Level 3 is saying they'd be willing to pay for the cards, but not bandwidth, eg continue using the free peering agreement. Verizon is saying that Level 3 should pay for the bandwidth (probably way more costly than the cards), since they are already getting more than they are owed in the free peering agreement.
There is no bandwidth to pay for. This is settlement-free peering. Once you have the line cards, it's simply a matter of adding the physical cross-connects.
Verizon's position is that simply adding more cards within the free peering agreement will make it even more unbalanced in level 3's favour, hence their suggestion that level 3 pay for bandwidth through a different agreement.