dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
27

PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY

1 recommendation

PhoenixDown to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora

Re: Isn't 100% congestion at the Verizon exchange their problem?

Why is it Verizon's issue? If the CDN provider is sending 3x the traffic - its on them to upgrade the peering point.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

3 recommendations

pandora

Premium Member

said by PhoenixDown:

Why is it Verizon's issue? If the CDN provider is sending 3x the traffic - its on them to upgrade the peering point.

It's a choke point, limiting access for Verizon's customers. The customers problem is created by Verizon not having sufficient bandwidth at the network exchange.

DaSneaky1D
what's up
MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou

3 recommendations

DaSneaky1D to PhoenixDown

MVM

to PhoenixDown
Not that easy... We don't know if the Transit provider has a settlement-free peering agreement with Verizon at the point of congestion. If they do, then Vz can "say" that they're sending an imbalanced amount of traffic between the two providers, and that's the issue...which "should" encourage Vz to send more traffic egress through that same peering point.

However, if that's not the case, and this is purely transit onto Vz's network, then it's up to that provider to increase their bandwidth capacity. However, since that wasn't the immediate go-to solution, I'm inclined to think that this is a settlement-free arrangement and Vz is being difficult by letting the peering point saturate.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Settlement free or not does not matter. You as an ISP don't get settlement free peering because you dont sell your network in a way that would add value to a peer wanting to be settlement free with you. Verizon, just as Comcast did, is trying to put the traffic of their ISP subscribers in with peering traffic for the purpose of transit to other networks because they are so big and it simply is not how it works and never has. An ISP will always pay to peer to allow them to be a part of the Internet simply because they sell their connections download intensive and through the TOS restrict uploading thus making it a very one sided connection.

That changes when you have very large networks like Verizon and Comcast, but as I pointed out we are talking about their own ISP subscribers, not transit traffic. It is internet traffic the subscribers of Verizon is requesting. What it is and who it is from is not at all relevant. We are not talking about a peering point that L3 or Netflix is using to get to another ISP's consumers through Verizon's network/peering points. Even if that was the case, then Verizon would still be responsible for maintaining that to deliver the traffic that surely that much smaller ISP is paying them for. Thus no matter how you slice it, Verizon is responsible 100% to make sure the traffic that THEIR customers are requesting is able to get to them in a adequate and usable way. If it is not, then they are responsible for upgrading their network, whether it be hardware or links) to accommodate their subscribers traffic.
Mikel1971
join:2006-08-01
Athens, GA

Mikel1971 to pandora

Member

to pandora
Pandora is absolutely correct. i have worked for VZ, Cogent and other ISP's and all the BIG BOYS over saturate their peering points so as to get the customers of the smaller ISPs to come to them directly.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

iansltx to PhoenixDown

Member

to PhoenixDown
Level3 can upgrade their ports to 100x10G, but if Verizon doesn't have those ports on their side, there's nothing for the cables to connect to.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

2 recommendations

Skippy25 to PhoenixDown

Member

to PhoenixDown
Because the CDN provider is not "sending" them 3x's the traffic. It Verizon's subscribers requesting 3x's the traffic.

PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY

2 recommendations

PhoenixDown to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
That's actually not correct -- settlement free peering is based on an equal trade of traffic.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

said by PhoenixDown:

That's actually not correct -- settlement free peering is based on an equal trade of traffic.

In some cases, but not all. Settlement-free peering is a decision made by both connecting networks based on a mutual benefit, which may or may not include traffic ratios.

Stating that it is based on "equal trade of traffic" implies it is a universal standard, which is not true. Only a few networks seem to follow this standard.

firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

Because the CDN provider is not "sending" them 3x's the traffic. It Verizon's subscribers requesting 3x's the traffic.

This.

Thanks for not letting the shills run with the "netflix sending the data" bs.

Customers request product, pay for delivery, expect said product to be delivered. It's been that way for thousands of years.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

2 recommendations

AVonGauss

Premium Member

said by firephoto:

Customers request product, pay for delivery, expect said product to be delivered. It's been that way for thousands of years.

It sounds nice, but it's never worked like that for settlement free or paid settlement interconnections.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25

Member

From an ISP perspective... Yes it has. Backbone transit traffic is based on mutually beneficial connections between the parties to reach places their networks don't directly. But this is ISP traffic causing a congestion, not transit traffic.

This was never an issue until NN rules were struck down. In addition, if you look at the players involved in "congestion" it is only the very large ISPs that have a very large subscriber base to hold hostage against Netflix. Much smaller ISPs who's rate of return per subscriber is probably much lower dont seem to have an issue with maintaining their network and connections to handle Netflix traffic. Why is that?
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

3 recommendations

AVonGauss

Premium Member

No, it hasn't. Whether or not a customer has "requested" data has never (and likely will never) factor in to whether a paid or settlement free interconnection agreement is reached. For that matter, when you start talking "backbone" there is no distinction between what you think of as an ISP - they are all service providers.

The network neutrality guidelines that you are referencing have nothing to do with interconnections and the concept of paid settlement far predates the network neutrality guidelines.

Plus One
@50.182.54.x

Plus One to Skippy25

Anon

to Skippy25
Transit providers are getting squeezed out by demanding settlement free peering and not signing contracts to upgrade peering points. They want all the fees from content companies, but don't want to pay when data exchanged isn't equal with the ISP.

Result: they won't make deals with ISPs and said ISPs will bypass them by negotiating directly with content companies. Consolidation by ISPs snd by Content providers makes it easier to bypass transit providers. Hint: don't invest in transit providers - their business is in for a long drawn out slide in to irrelevancy.

firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto to AVonGauss

Premium Member

to AVonGauss
You're obfuscating reality by tying every argument into one of interconnection deals.

Customers of an ISP request data and expect to receive data. That is the reality.

Private confidential deals made by ISPs with other media controlling entities have no bearing on if a customer's requested data is being manipulated below an acceptable rate for the data to be used as expected.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to Plus One

Member

to Plus One
The only way your result will ever come to be is if all the stars were aligned and the FTC and FCC bury their heads in the sand.

There would have to be only 2-3 ISPs that reach every single user in the entire country amongst them with virtually the exact same number of subscribers and with the about same demand for services from one another. That is the only time you will ever not have someone in between providing the service of connecting 2 networks to further extend their services to a place they dont reach physically themselves.

If the subscriber base was skewed toward one company then that ISP would have peering issues because of the one sided download connection. If one of the ISPs hosted something like Netflix then they would have a very one sided upload connection.

Then each of those ISPs would also have to have their own international connections or one will be blamed for passing more then they take.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

2 recommendations

AVonGauss to firephoto

Premium Member

to firephoto
What do you think the "Internet" is? It's a bunch of interconnection agreements between multiple networks with a certain level of global standards to keep things sane...

Whether a "customer has requested" data or not really has nothing to do with how interconnection agreements are reached - whether you like it or not. One side could use as leverage that it adds value to the others network, which can be very true, but it still boils down to transit (sending of data).

firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto

Premium Member

No.

Netflix doesn't just have a randomizer and pick an IP and send a movie out for someone they don't know to watch. It does not work that way.

The issue is that all these big ISP don't have the nuts to to do what they actually want to do and tell their own customers that Netflix isn't allowed. They could. Some ISP block access to certain websites so it would be within their means to block access to Netflix. Yes?

What is true is that the amount of money paid for ISP service is enough for any ISP in existence to pay for any connection necessary to anywhere on the internet. Do they? no they do not.

Who's problem is it again?
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

2 recommendations

AVonGauss

Premium Member

said by firephoto:

No.

Netflix doesn't just have a randomizer and pick an IP and send a movie out for someone they don't know to watch. It does not work that way.

You're right, its not how it works. Nor do "requests" come with a SASE (or shipping container for NetFlix video data) - each sender of data has the potential for needing to pay to deliver the data.
said by firephoto:

The issue is that all these big ISP don't have the nuts to to do what they actually want to do and tell their own customers that Netflix isn't allowed. They could. Some ISP block access to certain websites so it would be within their means to block access to Netflix. Yes?

Yes, a service provider could easily block access to NetFlix.
said by firephoto:

What is true is that the amount of money paid for ISP service is enough for any ISP in existence to pay for any connection necessary to anywhere on the internet. Do they? no they do not.

Who's problem is it again?

Not even close. You underestimate just how much it costs to build and operate a residential ISP - hence why you see very few people entering the market.

The amount of money involved in the interconnection agreements is not terribly significant, its more about principals I would guess. Like you, NetFlix wants to redefine peering - to their advantage, not unlike what ISPs do.
AVonGauss

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

The only way your result will ever come to be is if all the stars were aligned and the FTC and FCC bury their heads in the sand.

There would have to be only 2-3 ISPs that reach every single user in the entire country amongst them with virtually the exact same number of subscribers and with the about same demand for services from one another. That is the only time you will ever not have someone in between providing the service of connecting 2 networks to further extend their services to a place they dont reach physically themselves.

This has been happening in the US market for the last 8-10 years - no stars need be aligned. What's not listed in Plus One's result is that most deals are made with an intermediary, such as a data center instead of with content producers directly. Only the larger content producers have the need and motivation to directly contract for transit (generally).

Pure transit providers such as Level 3 and Cogent will still be around as you mentioned in your reply for international and some fringe areas that are not directly peered with, but their business overall in the domestic US market is on the decline.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

1 recommendation

BiggA to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
Exactly. And it's not hard to fix. Comcast is fixing the whole problem with only 300 10gig ports. That's nothing when running a massive nationwide network. But of course, while the engineers wanted to just turn the ports on, because it's good engineering, the idiots in the executive offices decided to go full-on Mafia on Netflix.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to PhoenixDown

Member

to PhoenixDown
Because its Verizon's customers requesting the data. Verizon's customers are Verizon's responsibility.
sonicmerlin

sonicmerlin to AVonGauss

Member

to AVonGauss
quote:
Not even close. You underestimate just how much it costs to build and operate a residential ISP - hence why you see very few people entering the market.

Please don't lie like that. The reason no one enters the market is because the barrier to entry is massive and the ROI is very long.

Wherever you build there will be an entrench incumbent. You need a massive sum of money to sink into building out your lines. All your customers have to be stolen from the incumbent, which means lower prices than them and huge sums spent on advertising, even though the incumbent has already paid for their infrastructure and only has the cost of maintenance to deal with, and of course has economies of scale on their side. Even if you do manage to succeed in all this, because of your low prices and large initial buildout costs, It will take several years to start seeing a profit.

None of that applies to the cost of network maintenance by the incumbent, which is generally very low.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

said by sonicmerlin:

said by AVonGauss:

Not even close. You underestimate just how much it costs to build and operate a residential ISP - hence why you see very few people entering the market.

Please don't lie like that. The reason no one enters the market is because the barrier to entry is massive and the ROI is very long.

Isn't that what AVonGauss See Profile said?
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 edit

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to sonicmerlin

Premium Member

to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

Please don't lie like that. The reason no one enters the market is because the barrier to entry is massive and the ROI is very long.

Wherever you build there will be an entrench incumbent. You need a massive sum of money to sink into building out your lines. All your customers have to be stolen from the incumbent, which means lower prices than them and huge sums spent on advertising, even though the incumbent has already paid for their infrastructure and only has the cost of maintenance to deal with, and of course has economies of scale on their side. Even if you do manage to succeed in all this, because of your low prices and large initial buildout costs, It will take several years to start seeing a profit.

Sounds more like we are agreeing...
said by sonicmerlin:

None of that applies to the cost of network maintenance by the incumbent, which is generally very low.

If by network maintenance you mean the primary transit links, sure, the cost is relatively low. If you are including all those pesky wires / glass on the poles and those ever entertaining drops to customer premises, we couldn't disagree more deeply...
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

2 recommendations

InvalidError to pandora

Member

to pandora
In grossly imbalanced settlement-free peering arrangements, the network receiving excess traffic usually has a clause entitling it to compensation for taking excess traffic.

In that case, Verizon would have every right to tell the other network to go screw itself if it wants to push even more settlement-free traffic through that peering point without offering some form of compensation.

Internet transit and peering has always worked this way but this has never been an issue before because before Netflix, there had never been a single entity responsible for such such a huge chunk of all prime-time internet traffic.

With P2P traffic, every network is both a source and sink so P2P traffic remained relatively balanced at all stages of the P2P revolution and that was perfect for settlement-free arrangements. With Netflix though, all traffic comes directly from Netflix's CDNs and their preferred routes so most of the traffic is one-sided and tunneled through a subset of all possible routes, which is exactly the opposite of what settlement-free peering has traditionally been about.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

3 recommendations

KrK

Premium Member

Except the Traffic they are taking is not for transit, it's their own customers generating the traffic demand and they are the end point. So the whole argument of "We are a transit company that provides free peering for equitable data exchange" collapses. They are the consumer.
KrK

KrK to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

But this is ISP traffic causing a congestion, not transit traffic.

^^^^^^ This 1000x this. It's NOT Transit traffic, it's the ISP's traffic, and they are the consumer. So they can't complain about it not being equitable both ways!

This is like telling your electric utility that since the amount of electricity they "push to your house" far exceeds any you can generate and send back to them, that now they owe you money for accepting the electricity you use.

It's ASININE.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

1 recommendation

InvalidError to DaSneaky1D

Member

to DaSneaky1D
Well, in a traditional settlement-free peering arrangements, there usually are limits to how imbalanced traffic can be before the receiving side is owed some form of compensation.

If that peer is refusing to pay up, letting their links congest at the existing transit capacity sounds like a fair enough way to protest. No point in going to court to complain about L3/Cogent/whatever sending 10X more traffic than their settlement-free peering agreement entitles them to when you can simply turn off 90% of your capacity with them to prevent them from sending you any more traffic than the minimum amount required by the agreement if you really wanted to give Netflix/L3/Cogent/etc. a hard time about it.
InvalidError

2 recommendations

InvalidError to KrK

Member

to KrK
Netflix is the consumer here - they paid transit providers and CDNs to host and deliver that data.

In any case, Verizon has no obligation to upgrade their side of things if they cannot come to mutually agreeable terms with whoever is on the other side of those links. If Verizon says they are not eating the cost of propagating 200Gbps more traffic from transit/peer/CDN-X for free, that's the end of that.

200Gbps may not seem like much in carrier terms but upgrading and re-wiring stuff nation-wide to efficiently propagate or fan-out an extra 200Gbps across the network can still cost hundreds of millions of dollars so there is some legitimacy to Verizon not wanting to put all their bandwidth eggs in the same PoP baskets with the same peers/CDNs without compensation: Netflix switching CDNs and transit providers can invalidate a large chunk of Verizon investments to accommodate the previous CDNs' network layouts and having 30-50% of your peak hour load distribution change drastically from coast to coast practically overnight would require considerable network re-engineering. Forcing geographic diversity by refusing to upgrade links at over-invested locations can be one way to reduce this risk - spread costs, assets, traffic ingress/egress, etc. more evenly.