[peterwwillis]

Didn't miss it. And it would seem that has nothing to do with Comcast. Just read the paragraph again. They have 6 peers who are using a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port and somehow (who'da thunk?) it is congested. So they are upgrading their one port that is degrading traffic for six peers.

They're right, it is business as usual, and you do have to change ports as traffic flows change. This has nothing to do with Level3 and Comcast's (apparent?) failure to reach consensus on a peering agreement, or if either of them has invested anything in it.

[BrechtVds]

As I understand it there are 6 peers with the following situation:

  - Between 1 to 20 ports between Level3 and that peer
  - 1 of those ports is congested
  - They are handling the upgrade together, which is business as usual.

Then there are 6 other peers with the following situation:

  - Between 1 to 20 ports between Level3 and that peer
  - Almost all of those ports are congested
  - The peer refuses to augment capacity

"Congestion that is permanent, has been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content."

[pdonis]

> They have 6 peers who are using a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port

No, they have 6 peers who have a single congested port each. It's a different port for each peer (the article says nothing about multiple peers sharing a single port), and I can't tell from the article if the single port for each peer is the only port they have with those peers. It might be, or it might not. Whether it is or not is irrelevant to the key point, which is that these peers are cooperating with Level 3 to upgrade capacity, which is not true of the 6 peers who have had permanent congestion for over a year.