During Netflix money fight, Cogent’s other big customers suffered too

Cogent prioritized small business traffic over large network users.

Read the whole story

 

[superchkn]

KyleM[/url]":1eaj2u3j]

wicketr[/url]":1eaj2u3j]In a world of "net neutrality" Cogent was just as guilty. You can't divide packets into wholesale vs retail unless you are doing exactly what Verizon is proposing with different tiers of access speeds.

I totally disagree. Cogent was doing the best they could given the constraints imposed on them by the 4 ISPs. If cogent transmits the traffic through their network, just to get to the edge router and not have enough capacity with their peer, this is not cogent fault, assuming they were willing to upgrade their connection, which they were.

Indeed. It pays to understand how QoS functions, and how Cogent was specifically configuring their network.

A slow and fast lane would be to setup a queue limited to some arbitrary bandwidth lower than that of your pipe for the slow lane, and unrestricted (and prioritized) for the fast lane. This would result in the slow always being relatively slow regardless of the bandwidth available and in times of congestion, the packets in the fast pipe would be prioritized over the slow.

Instead, what it sounds like Cogent did is to prioritize one set of traffic over another, which would only make any significant difference when the pipe was congested.

Those configurations listed above are not equivalent despite the way some ISPs are trying to spin it.