mailing list archives
Re: "IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)
From: JC Dill <jcdill.lists () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:44:07 -0800
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I do not work for GOOG or YouTube, I do not know why they do what they
do. However, it is trivial to think up perfectly valid reasons for
Google to intentionally break caches on YouTube content (e.g. paid
advertising per download).
Doesn't matter if you have small links or no infrastructure or
whatever. Google has ever right, moral & legal, to serve content as
they please. They are providing the content for free, but they want
to do it on their own terms. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Do
This brings me back the peering problem - if network A's customer sends
network B's server a small packet, and network B's server sends back a
video, why should Network A be forced to pay the lion's share of the
bandwidth costs to deliver Network B's video (and ads) to the viewer?
Networks which send large amounts of content should do their best to
reduce the bandwidth load on end-user networks whenever and where ever
possible, by hot-potato routing, by allowing the content to be cached,
They can't do otherwise and also claim they "do no harm".
Adrian, what did your contacts at Google say when you asked them how
this policy was consistent with their Do No Harm motto? If you didn't
ask, I suggest you go ask!