bdb
I had an XKeys strip for a previous iteration, which included similar keycaps. My hand-written labels were ugly, so I skipped them this time around.
AWS lowers data transfer prices for PrivateLink, Transit Gateway, Client VPN
A ChromeOS extension which duct tapes an SSH agent to the platformKey API
Wired’s Mat Honan Hired to Run New Buzzfeed Silicon Valley Bureau
Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
Using BGP data to find Spammers
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/the-facts-about-...
Shouldn't Comcast be required to purchase enough capacity to provide high-quality service to their residential customers? SFI between a content provider and an eyeball network should be a mutually beneficial cost reduction, but Comcast has enough market power (captive broadband subs) that they can get away with intentionally not buying enough capacity to serve their customers.
Let's do some simple math to prove your point.
Assume Comcast has about 10 Tbps of traffic at peak, single-counting all traffic that transits AS 7922 (Comcast's national backbone network). [1] Now assume that a full 50% of that traffic is originated by Netflix, and the market price for transit is $2/mbps. The percentage is likely quite lower than that, and given 5 Tbps of traffic volume and coordination between the two networks to reduce the number of miles the bits need to be hauled by both networks, the per-megabit price is almost certainly quite a bit less.
But even with these obviously flawed guesses, we're only talking about $120mm/year in costs. Netflix's worldwide revenue in 2013 was $4.3b [2]; Comcast's 2013 revenue from their US HSI business alone was $10.3b. [3] If 50% of Comcast's $10.3b business was in jeopardy, don't you think they'd find a way to absorb that $120mm?
[1] http://as7922.peeringdb.com/
[2] Netflix Q4 2013 earnings release, http://ir.netflix.com/results.cfm
[3] Comcast 10-K filed 2/12/2014
(edited: formatting)
Even so, if it were in fact going via the IX, you'd see Netflix's IP from the exchange (206.223.116.133) as hop 8 in the traceroute.
Comcast and Netflix now have a direct adjacency
This is what is actually happening. Virgin Media peers with Cogent. Virgin prefers routes from peers over transit. Cogent is turrible at provisioning and filtering, and is a large international transit provider.
Let's look at the route from Cogent's perspective:
BGP routing table entry for 199.58.210.0/24, version 2031309347
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
54098 11557 4436 40015 54876
38.122.66.186 (metric 10105011) from 154.54.66.76 (154.54.66.76)
Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 130, valid, internal, best
Community: 174:3092 174:10031 174:20999 174:21001 174:22013
If Cogent was competent at filtering, they'd never learn a route transiting 4436 via a customer port in the first place, but most likely someone at Lionlink (54098) is leaking from one of their transit providers (Sidera, 11557) to another (Cogent, 174).Also, traffic passing through Switzerland is a red herring -- the poster is using a geoip database to look up where a Cogent router is. GeoIP databases are typically populated by user activity, e.g., mobile devices phoning home to get wifi-based location, credit card txns, etc. None of this traffic comes from a ptp interface address on a core router. GeoIP databases tend to have a resolution of about a /24, whereas infrastructure netblocks tend to be chopped up into /30s or /31s for ptp links and /32s for loopbacks, so two adjacent /32s could physically be located in wildly different parts of the world. More than likely, that IP address was previously assigned to a customer. The more accurate source of information would be the router's hostname, which clearly indicates that it is in London. The handoff between Virgin and Cogent almost certainly happens at Telehouse in the Docklands.
If someone were, in fact, trying to intercept your traffic, they could almost certainly do so without you noticing (at least at layer 3.)