Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Observations of an Internet Middleman

blog.level3.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 180 posts

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#151

Post by DontGiveTwoFlux »

sergiosgc wrote: post #143

If this is a game of chicken, Level 3 and Cogent should play it to the end game. They are powerful enough to get Comcast and the other ISPs to concede. Just null route any interconnect that consistently drops packets and fails to get negotiated for an upgrade. The catch? It must be done by both L3 and Cogent. Comcast is playing the monopoly card against what is an oligopoly of backbone providers. Comcast isn't strate…

Except that it would probably violate their contracts to just stop services at an interconnect. It's not like Level 3 is losing customers or money from the congested interconnects. Their incentive to play hardball just isn't there.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#152

Post by zero_intp »

seszett wrote: post #137
zero_intp wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free just doesn't buy enough transit; they are not a tier 1 provider.

The ISPs in question explicitly aren't tier 1 providers. Free is tier 2, and they are very much behaving like the ISPs the article is talking about, just not with Level 3.

Free buys transit, and that transit is full. All the time. The article is talking about settlement free peering. There are significant differences between Free running their uplinks hot and a peering partners running their interconnects hot.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#153

Post by wpietri »

exelius wrote: post #3
wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

I think Level3's issue is that Comcast is unwilling to increase the capacity of their links without payment from Level3. If Level3 engages in settlement-free peering with Comcast and their network traffic graph looks anything like the 100gbit link in the article, I don't blame them: it's a 20:1 disparity in traffic in vs traffic out. What's happening here is that Level3 and other transit providers are starting to see…

> Settlement-free peering assumes that bandwidth usage is roughly symmetric: when it's not symmetric, the side sending more bandwidth has to pay.

Does it assume that?

Since about the time of the web browser, we've had consumer-focused ISPs. Consumer traffic is mostly small requests for large replies. But as the article suggests, Level3 has a lot of settlement-free peering with consumer ISPs. My belief is that being settlement free isn't about equality of packets, but equality of demand. E.g., I have a lot of servers made to serve consumers; you have a lot of consumers wanting access to my servers; let's just split the costs.

In any case, given that those Comcast packets are mostly requesting all those Level3 packets, it seems much fairer to charge Comcast disproportionately, as its their customers who are creating the demand.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#154

Post by wpietri »

chrisBob wrote: post #147

If you are experiencing a slow connection and packet loss, what is the best tool for identifying the issue? There must be a good way to find out where the problem is.

I use mtr. But reading it takes experience, so for a month or so just fire it up everywhere you go, especially when things are working well.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#155

Post by wpietri »

erichocean wrote: post #83
LandoCalrissian wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely crazy and just blatant extortion on Comcast's part. The current system is pretty straight forward. Level 3: Server(Who Level 3 Charges) -> Level 3 -> Comcast -> End User Comcast: End User(Who Comcast Charges) -> Comcast -> Level 3 -> Server Now Comcast wants to charge everyone in the chain that isn't them. They are attempting to do this by degrading (or at the very least not upgrading) their services…

Ahem. "Techno-libertarians" aren't the ones who gave Comcast its monopolies on the last mile. Please leave them out of this.

They have been a strong voice for less regulation, especially less regulation of technology. We reined in AT&T through regulation, forcing them to share their last-mile plant with others. We could (and should) have done the same with monopoly cable providers, but the anti-regulation fever in the US prevented that.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#156

Post by wpietri »

preinheimer wrote: post #5
wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to push more data through that, which causes congestion, it seems like a contractual fact that Comcast is either holding up their end of the bargain or not." Level 3 doesn't buy the connection from Comcast. Comcast buys a connection from Level 3. Comcast needs to…

> Comcast needs to do this because they're selling a connection to the "Internet" to their customers, not a connection to the servers Comcast owns, and to other Comcast customers.

Only, I'm sure, because it's untenable to do that. Yet. Cable execs really, really like their model of charging people for channels; it lets them extract maximum revenue. If they can do that with the Internet, they will. It may be difficult to do that on the consumer side yet, but what they're doing with Netflix is basically a complicated way to sneak more Comcast charges on to their customer's bills. In this case, via the Netfilx bill.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#157

Post by malchow »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #54
exelius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Level3's issue is that Comcast is unwilling to increase the capacity of their links without payment from Level3. If Level3 engages in settlement-free peering with Comcast and their network traffic graph looks anything like the 100gbit link in the article, I don't blame them: it's a 20:1 disparity in traffic in vs traffic out. What's happening here is that Level3 and other transit providers are starting to see…

The big trouble is that we need settlement-free peering, or we'll have a very different sort of internet, or maybe none at all. Though it's hard for some to remember (or to believe), there were big consumer networks prior to the advent of consumer-oriented Internet. Compuserve and AOL were their own networks. And they were abysmal. Peering not only ruined that business model, it managed to co-opt those networks and a…

How about: a representative Congress mandates strong net neutrality rules and Comcast runs a 20% margin business instead of a ~83% margin business?

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#158

Post by mixologic »

pdonis wrote: post #129
mixologic wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they cant cut out the middleman. Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix or anywhere else on the internet. I think Level 3 should straight up shut off their peering agreement with comcast and watch how all the last mile customers blame comcast for the issue, until such time as comcast stops playing games.

> Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix They do now that a deal has been worked out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23...

All of their customers will still have to go through middlemen. Thats how the internet functions.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#159

Post by mixologic »

danielweber wrote: post #33
mixologic wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they cant cut out the middleman. Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix or anywhere else on the internet. I think Level 3 should straight up shut off their peering agreement with comcast and watch how all the last mile customers blame comcast for the issue, until such time as comcast stops playing games.

That assumes they blame Comcast. Maybe they blame Netflix for not working. If you get to set the narrative such that one side or the other as the only ones who gain from the interconnection, this becomes trivial, but the hard facts are that both sides want the interconnection, but to try as hard to pretend that the other side is the more desperate one in the deal.

Comcasts customers pay Comcast for service. If every website they went to didnt work, they'd be calling, and blaming, Comcast.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#160

Post by zero_intp »

DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #151
sergiosgc wrote: post #143

If this is a game of chicken, Level 3 and Cogent should play it to the end game. They are powerful enough to get Comcast and the other ISPs to concede. Just null route any interconnect that consistently drops packets and fails to get negotiated for an upgrade. The catch? It must be done by both L3 and Cogent. Comcast is playing the monopoly card against what is an oligopoly of backbone providers. Comcast isn't strate…

Except that it would probably violate their contracts to just stop services at an interconnect. It's not like Level 3 is losing customers or money from the congested interconnects. Their incentive to play hardball just isn't there.

Level3 and Cogent both bill the majority (by traffic volume) of their network consumers by utilization. This means that these congested pipes are actually costing potential revenue.

Obviously Cogent would be willing to cut off their own nose to spite their face, but Level3 plays a much more sane game.

Hardball by coordinating efforts of the backbone providers is somewhat thwarted by the coordinated efforts of the MSO's, some with their own backbones (VZ, AT&T). Cutting off Comcast would also invalidate a number of (government) customer contracts that require service 'to the full Internet'.

Post reply on HN