Comments on: Level 3 Goes Web 2.0 with You Tube http://gigaom.com/2006/09/13/level-3-goes-web-20-with-you-tube/ Tracking the Internet Evolution Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:41:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: David Ulevitch http://gigaom.com/2006/09/13/level-3-goes-web-20-with-you-tube/#comment-65010 David Ulevitch Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:04:35 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/level-3-goes-web-20-with-you-tube/#comment-65010 <p>Inter-site connectivity is something Level(3) has always been good about, and has gotten even better about with all their recent fiber and metro acquisitions.</p> <p>In regards to ingjerd, all the connections are P2P already (point to point). A peer-to-peer solution would be subobtimal at best. YouTube has an extensive and growing network and expanding out to datacenters requires backhaul for them (for now at least), this is what Level(3) is providing over the 10ge links -- inter-site connectivity. If they are buying transit from Level(3) that's something else.</p> <p>As for what it has to do with Limelight, well the limelight carrying youtube's traffic story has been propagated so far but isn't true. They carry only a fraction of Youtube's traffic.</p> <p>Basic colocation will never make in-roads against complex CDNS but two things are happening: First, CDNs will become simple to use like CacheFly and second, complex networks are becoming less complex. Don't consider what youtube is doing to be "basic telco colocation" because it isn't. They have extensive peering and datacenters being deployed. It's far from basic telco stuff.</p> <p>-david</p> Inter-site connectivity is something Level(3) has always been good about, and has gotten even better about with all their recent fiber and metro acquisitions.

In regards to ingjerd, all the connections are P2P already (point to point). A peer-to-peer solution would be subobtimal at best. YouTube has an extensive and growing network and expanding out to datacenters requires backhaul for them (for now at least), this is what Level(3) is providing over the 10ge links — inter-site connectivity. If they are buying transit from Level(3) that’s something else.

As for what it has to do with Limelight, well the limelight carrying youtube’s traffic story has been propagated so far but isn’t true. They carry only a fraction of Youtube’s traffic.

Basic colocation will never make in-roads against complex CDNS but two things are happening: First, CDNs will become simple to use like CacheFly and second, complex networks are becoming less complex. Don’t consider what youtube is doing to be “basic telco colocation” because it isn’t. They have extensive peering and datacenters being deployed. It’s far from basic telco stuff.

-david

]]> By: eric http://gigaom.com/2006/09/13/level-3-goes-web-20-with-you-tube/#comment-65009 eric Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:11:17 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/level-3-goes-web-20-with-you-tube/#comment-65009 <p>Om, any thoughts regarding Limelight and this deal?</p> <p>Basic telco colocation making in-roads against complex CDNs?</p> Om, any thoughts regarding Limelight and this deal?

Basic telco colocation making in-roads against complex CDNs?

]]> By: ingjerd jevnaker http://gigaom.com/2006/09/13/level-3-goes-web-20-with-you-tube/#comment-65008 ingjerd jevnaker Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:10:00 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/level-3-goes-web-20-with-you-tube/#comment-65008 <p>Very interesting development indeed! And if Level 3 then employs p2p technologies to handle their traffic, that would be even more faciniating. </p> <p>Even level 3 will struggle to handle all that traffic…?</p> Very interesting development indeed! And if Level 3 then employs p2p technologies to handle their traffic, that would be even more faciniating.

Even level 3 will struggle to handle all that traffic…?

]]>