kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL |
to FactChecker
Re: VPN | no-VPN = same broadband providerIt works because the provider has no clue it's coming from Netflix. Netflix sends the traffic to the end users VPN provider, and they forward it in an encrypted state to the end user. |
|
| |
So all ISPs are looking at every packet and throttling Netflix specifically? I thought that theory was discredited as highly unlikely (even the Netflix CEO said this wasn't happening)
Is it possible that Netflix thinks the VPN request is coming from a different ISP... Then Netflix sends the traffic to the end user via a better path (which is available and could be used by Netflix in the first place)? |
|
 norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA |
norm
Member
2014-Feb-21 6:19 pm
Announcing routes is a two way street. I think a better forum for your questions would be NANOG. I suggest you ask them about BGP and why a VPN would work for the likes of Netflix and other services that appear to be degraded.
Edit: I don't mean the above in an offensive manner. I understand BGP enough to ... understand it. I don't understand it well enough to adequately explain it. |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL |
to FactChecker
Whether or not they 'throttle' or examine every packet (unlikely), they sure as heck know the IP addresses of network peers throwing Netflix traffic at them. |
|
1 edit |
So as I understand it, Verizon BGP announces all their routes to every Tier 1 (and every other peer they have). Are you saying that Verizon is congesting every Tier 1 and all their peers? How is Amazon, Apple, and other video working and why can't Netflix do the same thing via all the options that exist? |
|
 jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
1 recommendation |
to kaila
said by kaila:It works because the provider has no clue it's coming from Netflix. Netflix sends the traffic to the end users VPN provider, and they forward it in an encrypted state to the end user. Actually it is kind of the opposite. A destination CDN is deciding based on your source address what route to use to send packets back to you. Here's what ArsTechnica said on that subject at » arstechnica.com/informat ··· ideo/2/:Maximize the pain
There's actually a "peering playbook" written by consulting firm DrPeering International, with strategies for forcing ISPs into free peering agreements. One tactic is to manipulate traffic in such a way that peering becomes the most cost-effective option for your opponents at the negotiating table.
"They recommend strategically choosing paths to maximize the costs to the person you're trying to force to peer with you," Bowman said.
How would it work?
"Hypothetically, let's say I know the ISP I'm going to pick on this month, and I know there's three different ways into their network. One of them they pay a dollar for, one they pay $10 for, and one they pay $100 for. So I just switch all my traffic to the $100 one until they cry and then I say, 'ok, I'll come to your door and let's just do it for free.'"
Similarly, an ISP may have "three links that are each 10 gigabit. They're expecting that I'll send my traffic equally on all three links. What I'll do instead is on Monday I'll send on link 1 and on Tuesday I'll send on link 2, and then congestion will appear and subscribers will have a bad experience." The ISP would be forced to upgrade each of the links, even though only one of them would be used to capacity on any given day.
From the video streaming provider's point of view, "I'm forcing them to spend a lot of money, they're stranding their capital, eventually they'll come to my door to negotiate. That's what the peering playbook talks about."
"Without a doubt there is some streaming company doing that today. I just couldn't say that it's anyone specific because I don't have information to show it," he said.
Netflix wants to peer directly with ISPs and put its video caches inside the ISP data centers. The offer is "free," but ISPs would have to host equipment dedicated to Netflix, letting Netflix save money on transit fees.
Some ISPs believe this is a win-win on both sides and for consumers, but ISPs who think otherwise have a valid point, Bowman said. "If someone comes to you and says, 'hey I'm big, I want differentiated service, I'd like to move close to your consumers, so can you please make 40 inches of space and 5,000 watts of power available at 100 sites, thanks very much,' you would normally say, 'I'm in the business of selling that%u2014here's my price list." |
|
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN |
BlueC
Member
2014-Feb-21 8:32 pm
Except ISPs have the option to simply peer with Netflix, you're not forced to provide collocation to them. I get the argument for not wanting to provide power and space for free, however that's not the sole solution. Peering is completely doable.
What cost is that to ISPs? Additional 10G ports?
Ah but that's right, there's the whole settlement-free dispute. It's a lot more profitable to have the traffic come in through carriers that pay you for the capacity. It's a business decision after all. |
|
2 recommendations |
to jlivingood
That write up shows clearly that trying to lay all the blame on the ISPs is a mistake. These streaming content companies are also sharks that screw the customer to their own ends to reduce costs and increase profits. |
|
 rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay |
to kaila
said by kaila:It works because the provider has no clue it's coming from Netflix. No, more accurately, with a VPN you may be receiving traffic through another peer. We know that Netflix uses Cogent for transit. We have reasons to believe the peering between Cogent and Verizon is saturated. The end result is traffic coming to Verizon over Cogent has to get through points of high congestion. Strictly for example, suppose your VPN provider uses Level3 transit. The peering between Cogent and Level3 is believed to be in much better shape than with Verizon. So, your VPN provider receives Netflix traffic through a path that is not congested, and transits Level3 into Verizon's network. Voila, you receive Netflix but through a path OTHER THAN via Cogent-->Verizon. In the above example, it would be Cogent-->Level3-->Verizon. Since there is no publicly known capacity issue between Level3 and VZ, performance would most likely be improved using a VPN to watch Netflix. |
|
1 recommendation |
to BlueC
said by BlueC:What cost is that to ISPs? Additional 10G ports? I can't tell if you're serious. Do you think 10G ports are FREE? Why should ISP's foot the bill to help Netflix succeed? |
|
 SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
said by weaseled386:I can't tell if you're serious. Do you think 10G ports are FREE? Why should ISP's foot the bill to help Netflix succeed? So, if I was a large business and I wanted to pay for a 10GigE link to my NOC, it's too damn bad? The same could be said when most providers were running FastE ports. Why should the ISP's foot the bill for GigE links? |
|
| |
to weaseled386
said by weaseled386:Why should ISP's foot the bill to help Netflix succeed? Because content providers like Netflix create demand for pricey bandwidth packages at the consumer end, which are ridiculously marked up at retail. |
|
| |
to weaseled386
said by weaseled386:said by BlueC:What cost is that to ISPs? Additional 10G ports? I can't tell if you're serious. Do you think 10G ports are FREE? Why should ISP's foot the bill to help Netflix succeed? Is this supposed to be a joke? Those paying customers that have payed to reach the Internet? not some arbitrary selection of what the ISP deems is Ok. Netflix doesn't just shove random traffic down random networks. Customers of the ISPs have requested this traffic and are paying to receive this traffic. It's amazing that people seem to have such a hard time grasping such a simple concept. |
|
| |
notsimple
Anon
2014-Feb-23 12:29 pm
Is this supposed to be a joke? Those paying customers that have payed to reach the Internet? not some arbitrary selection of what the ISP deems is Ok. Netflix doesn't just shove random traffic down random networks. Customers of the ISPs have requested this traffic and are paying to receive this traffic. It's amazing that people seem to have such a hard time grasping such a simple concept. This "requester argument" has been used successfully as "red herring" (by Netflix lobbyists) and repeated by those that don't really understand how the Internet works. Netflix has always paid for transit to deliver their service. Their customers pay them a monthly fee to deliver it with the quality they expect. Netflix saying that people are already paying for Netflix transit in their ISP fee is quite false. It is not the ISPs responsiblity to pay or subsidize the Netflix's transit costs because "their customers are requesting this traffic" Netflix cheaping out on transit is what is impacting their customers. |
|
-1 recommendation |
connections
Anon
2014-Feb-23 1:07 pm
said by notsimple :This "requester argument" has been used successfully as "red herring" (by Netflix lobbyists) and repeated by those that don't really understand how the Internet works.
Netflix has always paid for transit to deliver their service. Their customers pay them a monthly fee to deliver it with the quality they expect. Netflix saying that people are already paying for Netflix transit in their ISP fee is quite false.
It is not the ISPs responsiblity to pay or subsidize the Netflix's transit costs because "their customers are requesting this traffic"
Netflix cheaping out on transit is what is impacting their customers. What?! This post doesn't even make any sense. It makes it pretty clear YOU do not know what you're talking about. No one has said anything about Verizon customers paying for Netflix transit. Verizon customers are paying to reach Netflix. This is a pretty simple concept that OBVIOUSLY is too difficult to understand. No, Verizon and the other ISPs wanting to double dip is what is impacting their customers. |
|
1 recommendation |
notsimple
Anon
2014-Feb-23 2:03 pm
What?! This post doesn't even make any sense. It makes it pretty clear YOU do not know what you're talking about. No one has said anything about Verizon customers paying for Netflix transit. Verizon customers are paying to reach Netflix. This is a pretty simple concept that OBVIOUSLY is too difficult to understand. No, Verizon and the other ISPs wanting to double dip is what is impacting their customers. Netflix requirements for peering (aka joining OpenConnect) is a form of them expecting not to have to pay for transit to deliver their service. This is not "double dipping". Netflix can pick any transit provider they want similar to anyone else. Just make good choices for your customers. The problem is they are picking ones which cannot deliver with quality and then blaming the ISPs for the problems. This is "bad transit" decision is meant as a forcing function around Netflix's demand for peering (aka joining OpenConnect) |
|
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
to notsimple
said by notsimple :This "requester argument" has been used successfully as "red herring" (by Netflix lobbyists) and repeated by those that don't really understand how the Internet works. Obviously, you don't know how the internet works, either. said by notsimple :Netflix has always paid for transit to deliver their service. Their customers pay them a monthly fee to deliver it with the quality they expect. Netflix saying that people are already paying for Netflix transit in their ISP fee is quite false.
It is not the ISPs responsiblity to pay or subsidize the Netflix's transit costs because "their customers are requesting this traffic"
Netflix cheaping out on transit is what is impacting their customers. Why are you blaming Netflix? How about blaming Microsoft as well for their system updates and Xbox Live service. What about Sony for the PlayStation Network? How about blaming every streaming provider on the Internet? This is specialized discrimination that Net Neutrality was to defend against. Now that it's gone, the ISP's and transit providers can do whatever they want. Unfortunately, they have Netflix in their crosshairs for some idiotic reason. So, a company buys an OC48 connection to the internet with unlimited traffic. How the heck is that "cheaping out on transit"? If I buy an OC48, it'd better be able to handle 2488.32Mbit/sec 24x7x365. If not, why am I paying for it again? |
|
| |
said by SimbaSeven:This is specialized discrimination that Net Neutrality was to defend against. Now that it's gone, the ISP's and transit providers can do whatever they want. That argument might have some validity if net neutrality was ever actually "here". Or more practically, the assumption that every ISP has rushed to choke streaming providers after the court ruled in Verizon's favor knowing full well that they would have such action shoved right back down their throats in short order is ludicrous. |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
Why are you blaming Netflix? How about blaming Microsoft as well for their system updates and Xbox Live service. What about Sony for the PlayStation Network? How about blaming every streaming provider on the Internet? Because they are not degrading their traffic to get special favors. This is why their service (and many others) work well, but Netflix is, for the most part, singularly problematic for users. This is Netflix making bad choices and blaming ISPs. |
|
·