With the undercarriage missing like that, it is likely that the interior and storage space of the vehicle is far smaller than is usual in a regular car.
What's missing from EVs more generally is the kind of range the Model S has for a price that is competitive in the mainstream (rather than luxury) market of cars.
I wholeheartedly agree. We are still at least one major breakthrough in battery technology away from EVs being mainstream competitors with ICEs. They need to either get the energy density way up and/or the cost way down somehow.
Tesla charges $10K to upgrade from the 60 Kwh to 85 Kwh battery. That means the 60 Kwh battery pack likely costs somewhere in the $20-25K range all by itself. The 85 Kwh battery pack is likely somewhere in the $30-35K range all by itself.
Tesla claims their next gen superchargers can already give a 50% charge in 20 minutes, so I think the recharge time argument is largely headed out the window already.
Maybe, but they are getting close to an acceptable mix of mileage and recharge time. Recharging for twenty minutes every few hours on a long trip is not so burdensome as to put such an EV out of the running for most people.
"As for reasonable price.... well, no one but you knows what that reasonable price is."
So, you think that more than $60K (and that's lowballing a Model S's cost) is a reasonable price for a car for most people? If Tesla can build a cheaper, say around $30K, but still decent car with the same range and recharge capabilities, then they'll be in the mainstream market and not just the luxury market.
My whole point was that I think we are at least one major breakthrough in battery technology away from that reality because the power pack for the lower range Model S costs about $25K all by itself. Or at least that is what Tesla is charging for it as they charge $10K to upgrade from the 60 Kwh -> 85 Kwh battery pack.
I just went and looked at Tesla superchargers and they claim that their next iteration of superchargers (i.e. - akin to gas stations) will be able to give 50% charge in 20 minutes and 80% charge in 40 minutes. That's pretty exciting assuming it doesn't degrade the lifetime of the batteries.
Now if they can just get the cost of the batteries down to a reasonable level, then this will be a true competitor to ICEs in the near future.
"Right, because gas powered cars built specifically to break speed/efficiency records are so much more practical...oh wait, they're also worthless for everything but breaking records and look just like this one... Why would you want to go to sleep now and miss all the exciting rapid development?"
My point was that we are still at least one major breakthrough in battery technology away from having EVs actually being meaningful competitors to ICEs.
"And in case you missed it, several Tesla's have already made cross country road trips."
Most people don't have $80+K to drop on a Model S.
"It might take 30 min to charge but 3 years ago it took 12 hours."
Is this actually true? Can you repeatedly fully re-charge a Model S in 30 minutes without doing long term damage to the battery? If so, then that's exciting news to me.
Absolutely. Until we have batteries that can recharge in less than a half hour (without shortening the battery's life) or go straight for 8-10 hours, long range driving with EVs will be a real hassle.
The body is obviously specially designed to be extremely aerodynamic -- the undercarriage of a typical car is largely missing -- which means it would not be comfortable / practical for normal usage. Also, the tires were extremely narrow to reduce friction. Wake me up when we have a breakthrough on battery technology that actually allows for practical long distance EVs at a reasonable price and/or can recharge in less than half an hour.
"Sounds like there was a handshake agreement between the companies originally. This handshake probably didn't include a late comer like level3."
The problem isn't L3 per se. The problem is that Netflix is a HUGE source of traffic and was sourcing the vast majority of its traffic through L3. That broke the assumptions of most of the tier 1 peering relationships L3 had. Now L3 is dishonestly trying to shame the other carriers into new agreements that allows L3 to keep getting paid by Netflix while its peers don't AND the peers have to upgrade their networks (not just the interconnects!) to handle the load.
"I would argue that if l3 approached these companies and said, we'll install the cards AND maintain these connections on L3's bill, everything will get resolved."
Yes, that is basically what Verizon is trying to get from L3: "Pay us for the unbalanced load that you are pushing onto our network."
My point was that tier 1 carriers like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and maybe Comcast want Netflix to buy access directly from them, so that the vast majority of Netflix traffic traversing their network would also originate on their network. That way they get paid by Netflix commensurate with the amount of load Netflix causes on their network.
"The bottom line is that Verizon downloads more than it uploads to all carriers everywhere and no amount of accounting will change that [ellipsis] Unbalanced traffic is part of Verizon's nature"
That is not true. Verizon has a tier 1 network that swallowed up UUNET's and MCI Worldcom's backbones. Verizon regularly provides transit access for other tier 2 and tier 3 networks. Traffic to + from residential customers of Verizon would very rarely traverse such links. Instead, the end customers of those tier 2 and tier 3 networks would pull down much more traffic from Verizon than they upload to it.
"I don't think it's Netflix that is breaking the business model, though."
Netflix choosing L3 as its main source network breaks the assumptions that L3 and its transit peers made when they set up their peering agreements. Netflix is such a massive source of traffic that any destination peer of L3 is likely going to have an unbalanced interconnect with L3.
Verizon and other transit carriers are telling Netflix that they are doing it wrong and trying to force them to change. If Netflix is going to originate so much of the traffic on the Internet that they break a core assumption of how the Internet is upgraded and maintained, then they should source it onto multiple transit networks instead of almost entirely through L3.
Now, it makes a TON of sense for Netflix to sole source through one transit provider if they can. They will get massive economies of scale and sweetheart deals because they will be far and away that network's biggest customer. As they've grown into a behemoth, they are being forced to realize that they can't lean on others' goodwill in this manner. They will have to bite the bullet and buy their access through multiple tier 1 carriers so that everyone gets a piece of the pie.
"Further, the symmetrical model likely never held for consumer ISPs."
That is absolutely true. Small ISPs actually have to buy their transit access from providers like L3 or Verizon.
Maybe the model breaking thing here is that Verizon (and possibly Comcast) are not just either a transit provider or an ISP but simultaneously both. So when they peer with a transit network or each other, then what should their peering agreement look like?
In the past, before Netflix, it seems like L3 and Verizon treated each other as transit providers and they did the typical transit peering agreement where both sides agreed to upgrade their side of the interconnects as needed and no money crossed hands so long as the flow of traffic was roughly even in both directions. Once L3 started hosting Netflix that premise of balanced traffic no longer held. By the letter of their transit peering agreement, Verizon is completely within its rights to refuse to upgrade the interconnect without L3 paying them for the unbalanced load. That is why you don't see L3 trying to sue Verizon to hold it to their peering contract. So, it is L3 that is now trying to change their peering agreement because they don't want to go by the usual transit one because they don't want to pay for the imbalance.
"The difference between L3 and Verizon is willing to charge its customers to cover its costs and Verizon would prefer to have somebody else's customers cover theirs. That's an understandable desire, but not a reasonable one."
I think the first part of that is the key point. Netflix (basically) pays a per Mb/s usage rate to L3 for all its usage (both send and recv). L3's revenue and profits from Netflix, therefore, naturally scale with whatever load that Netflix causes. Meanwhile, residential ISP customers (and probably the ISPs too usually) vastly prefer a fixed monthly cost as opposed to a variable one based off of usage.
If Verizon could charge its customers based on their usage and not lose customers over it, then this should be much less of an issue. If they had such a model and Verizon was still complaining about Netflix then it would be much more fair to conjecture about ulterior motives on their part.
That's a very interesting point! It would roughly double the cost to both Verizon and L3. The difference is that L3 would just turn around and charge Netflix more for the return usage and turn an even larger profit! But your point stands that at least the flow of traffic across the interconnect would be balanced.
I think you are demonstrating that Netflix breaks the typical peering business arrangements between transit carriers. This is exactly the issue that Verizon and other big ISPs are trying to force.
The ultimate problem is that Netflix is extremely popular and is bringing unprecedented amounts of load to ISP networks. Netflix accounts for something like 33% of all Internet traffic during peak usage! However, Netflix doesn't pay the ISP networks and L3 doesn't want to either. So, the ISPs have burgeoning usage requiring upgrades to their network but static revenue.
That's unsustainable. They will be forced to either extract money either directly or indirectly from Netflix or from their end-users. They obviously prefer the former and I agree with them as Netflix is the one most profiting from the massive load that they are causing.
Actually, the business relationships between transit carriers has usually been the opposite of what I think you are saying.
Typically, so long as the traffic flows were roughly equal, then neither side paid anything to the other. When that assumption broke down, then, typically, the network that was trying to push more traffic onto the other one paid and not the other way around.
Why? Because, if not, then every network would be monetarily incentivized to push their traffic off onto other networks always. They'd have less load on their internal networks and, as a bonus, they could actually charge the networks onto which they were dumping.
Except that Verizon is not a mom and pop ISP. They have their own transit backbones. They don't buy transit from others, they peer with other transit networks.
The big ISPs like Verizon and Comcast are not only last mile providers any more. They have their own national long-haul networks too.
Regardless, I agree with your point about the nigh impossibility of balancing traffic between transit providers and solely last mile providers. That does imply that such peering arrangements shouldn't be struck between them. It is unclear what the peering agreement between L3 and Verizon is in this case. All we know is that Mark Taylor from L3 said this: "we have a settlement free peering agreement with Verizon that has been in place for many, many years."
"Their customers have paid them for bandwidth and a connection to other networks. Netflix has paid L3 for their internet connectivity and L3 has delivered up to the Verizon network. Verizon chooses to not provide adequate access even though their customers are the ones pulling the data from Netflix."
That is correct, but you should be able to see that this is an unsustainable model. Let's say Netflix continues growing by leaps and bounds and absolutely dominates as the source of traffic on the Internet, even more so than it already does. L3 gets paid more and more by Netflix for their access bandwidth while Verizon gets absolutely nothing extra but is required to carry more and more load from L3. That can't work or will require last mile providers to continually raise their prices to upgrade their networks due to Netflix.
The alternative that Verizon et al are pushing is that Netflix buy access directly from them rather than through L3. This way, Verizon gets paid for the extra usage that Netflix is causing on their network and everyone is happy -- except L3 who is left out in the cold.
I actually do not know if L3 provides residential service or not. If they do, then it makes up a tiny fraction of what they do. They primarily serve business-to-business as a long haul transit backbone.
"Is the bidirectional peering arrangement based on the *ability* to accept equivalent flow, or on *actual* balanced flow?"
It's the latter. The networks track their interconnect usage and if it gets way out of balance, then usually some kind of deal is struck where the one pushing more load pays the one accepting it. L3 is balking at that now because they've become such a massive source of traffic on the Internet. Basically, it would cut into their profits if they did this, so instead they are throwing up a PR stink and trying to claim that their peers are actually the ones falling down on their commitments to them and their customers.
"they're essentially claiming Netflix/L-3 isn't a "peer", because of their high-content production and deliver - and want them to pay the "imbalanced" rates."
Yeah, that's basically it. L3 is getting hugely paid by Netflix but doesn't want to give any of that money to their peer networks. Instead, L3 wants their peers to upgrade their interconnects and networks to accept the unbalanced load L3 is pushing without any compensation. That's neither fair nor sustainable.
Netflix uses L3 as their primary source network (recently they've been branching out to other service providers too because of issues like this one). Netflix has a business arrangement where they buy an ENORMOUS amount of access bandwidth to L3. Because they are such a huge customer of L3, they obviously get the best deal on their usage rates and other costs with L3, which is a major reason why Netflix did it this way. L3 then tries to ensure that it can carry all of Netflix's (and their other customers') traffic without problem across their network.
However, the vast majority of residential customers don't get their service from L3. Most residential customers get their access from Verizon, Comcast or other residential broadband providers. So, Netflix's traffic has to flow off of L3's long haul network and onto these "downstream" networks through network interconnects (AKA peering points).
In the past, network providers would often agree to interconnect (and upgrade those interconnects as necessary) without any money exchanging hands so long as the traffic flows were roughly equal in both directions. The problem is that because Netflix sends so much data and it uses L3 as its primary network that premise completely breaks down here. Now, L3 wants to push much more data onto its peer networks than those peer networks want to push onto L3.
Basically, Netflix pays L3 a HUGE amount of money for their access and L3 wants their peer networks to upgrade and continuously carry this huge, unbalanced load without the downstream networks seeing one red cent of that money. Understandably, the downstream networks are balking at this.
PS - I'm a software engineer for a company that buys access directly from L3, Comcast, Verizon and others to create our own "private" peering points to carry 3rd party data globally.
You are correct that he needs the variable z, but incorrect that he has to cast 'blah' to (uint8_t*).
In C you are not required to cast from (void*) to other kinds of pointers (e.g. - uint8_t*) -- the compiler will do this automatically for you without complaint. In C++ you are, so you generally should always add the cast (e.g. - the return value from malloc) in case your C code gets compiled as C++ at some point.
It looks like he is serializing a 32b unsigned integer out to a buffer in big endian format.
Set up an AMT for corporations that operate in the US. If they are bigger than a certain size in terms of US revenues, then they have to pay a minimum tax rate on those revenues or the usual taxes on profits, whichever is higher.
Yes, that sucks for low margin companies with lots of revenue, but it's likely better than letting very profitable companies like MS, Google, FB and many others get off essentially scot free through international tax games.
I don't even think they re-invented FEC. Instead, they simply applied it to TCP in a transparent way. I'm sure they aren't the first people to do something along these lines.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, when I can choose all three with something like a VW TDI?
"Could you elaborate on what is missing?"
With the undercarriage missing like that, it is likely that the interior and storage space of the vehicle is far smaller than is usual in a regular car.
What's missing from EVs more generally is the kind of range the Model S has for a price that is competitive in the mainstream (rather than luxury) market of cars.
I wholeheartedly agree. We are still at least one major breakthrough in battery technology away from EVs being mainstream competitors with ICEs. They need to either get the energy density way up and/or the cost way down somehow.
Tesla charges $10K to upgrade from the 60 Kwh to 85 Kwh battery. That means the 60 Kwh battery pack likely costs somewhere in the $20-25K range all by itself. The 85 Kwh battery pack is likely somewhere in the $30-35K range all by itself.
Tesla claims their next gen superchargers can already give a 50% charge in 20 minutes, so I think the recharge time argument is largely headed out the window already.
Maybe, but they are getting close to an acceptable mix of mileage and recharge time. Recharging for twenty minutes every few hours on a long trip is not so burdensome as to put such an EV out of the running for most people.
"As for reasonable price.... well, no one but you knows what that reasonable price is."
So, you think that more than $60K (and that's lowballing a Model S's cost) is a reasonable price for a car for most people? If Tesla can build a cheaper, say around $30K, but still decent car with the same range and recharge capabilities, then they'll be in the mainstream market and not just the luxury market.
My whole point was that I think we are at least one major breakthrough in battery technology away from that reality because the power pack for the lower range Model S costs about $25K all by itself. Or at least that is what Tesla is charging for it as they charge $10K to upgrade from the 60 Kwh -> 85 Kwh battery pack.
That's great! Too bad they're so expensive ...
I just went and looked at Tesla superchargers and they claim that their next iteration of superchargers (i.e. - akin to gas stations) will be able to give 50% charge in 20 minutes and 80% charge in 40 minutes. That's pretty exciting assuming it doesn't degrade the lifetime of the batteries.
Now if they can just get the cost of the batteries down to a reasonable level, then this will be a true competitor to ICEs in the near future.
"Right, because gas powered cars built specifically to break speed/efficiency records are so much more practical...oh wait, they're also worthless for everything but breaking records and look just like this one ... Why would you want to go to sleep now and miss all the exciting rapid development?"
My point was that we are still at least one major breakthrough in battery technology away from having EVs actually being meaningful competitors to ICEs.
"And in case you missed it, several Tesla's have already made cross country road trips."
Most people don't have $80+K to drop on a Model S.
"It might take 30 min to charge but 3 years ago it took 12 hours."
Is this actually true? Can you repeatedly fully re-charge a Model S in 30 minutes without doing long term damage to the battery? If so, then that's exciting news to me.
Absolutely. Until we have batteries that can recharge in less than a half hour (without shortening the battery's life) or go straight for 8-10 hours, long range driving with EVs will be a real hassle.
The body is obviously specially designed to be extremely aerodynamic -- the undercarriage of a typical car is largely missing -- which means it would not be comfortable / practical for normal usage. Also, the tires were extremely narrow to reduce friction. Wake me up when we have a breakthrough on battery technology that actually allows for practical long distance EVs at a reasonable price and/or can recharge in less than half an hour.
"Sounds like there was a handshake agreement between the companies originally. This handshake probably didn't include a late comer like level3."
The problem isn't L3 per se. The problem is that Netflix is a HUGE source of traffic and was sourcing the vast majority of its traffic through L3. That broke the assumptions of most of the tier 1 peering relationships L3 had. Now L3 is dishonestly trying to shame the other carriers into new agreements that allows L3 to keep getting paid by Netflix while its peers don't AND the peers have to upgrade their networks (not just the interconnects!) to handle the load.
"I would argue that if l3 approached these companies and said, we'll install the cards AND maintain these connections on L3's bill, everything will get resolved."
Yes, that is basically what Verizon is trying to get from L3: "Pay us for the unbalanced load that you are pushing onto our network."
My point was that tier 1 carriers like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and maybe Comcast want Netflix to buy access directly from them, so that the vast majority of Netflix traffic traversing their network would also originate on their network. That way they get paid by Netflix commensurate with the amount of load Netflix causes on their network.
"The bottom line is that Verizon downloads more than it uploads to all carriers everywhere and no amount of accounting will change that [ellipsis] Unbalanced traffic is part of Verizon's nature"
That is not true. Verizon has a tier 1 network that swallowed up UUNET's and MCI Worldcom's backbones. Verizon regularly provides transit access for other tier 2 and tier 3 networks. Traffic to + from residential customers of Verizon would very rarely traverse such links. Instead, the end customers of those tier 2 and tier 3 networks would pull down much more traffic from Verizon than they upload to it.
"I don't think it's Netflix that is breaking the business model, though."
Netflix choosing L3 as its main source network breaks the assumptions that L3 and its transit peers made when they set up their peering agreements. Netflix is such a massive source of traffic that any destination peer of L3 is likely going to have an unbalanced interconnect with L3.
Verizon and other transit carriers are telling Netflix that they are doing it wrong and trying to force them to change. If Netflix is going to originate so much of the traffic on the Internet that they break a core assumption of how the Internet is upgraded and maintained, then they should source it onto multiple transit networks instead of almost entirely through L3.
Now, it makes a TON of sense for Netflix to sole source through one transit provider if they can. They will get massive economies of scale and sweetheart deals because they will be far and away that network's biggest customer. As they've grown into a behemoth, they are being forced to realize that they can't lean on others' goodwill in this manner. They will have to bite the bullet and buy their access through multiple tier 1 carriers so that everyone gets a piece of the pie.
"Further, the symmetrical model likely never held for consumer ISPs."
That is absolutely true. Small ISPs actually have to buy their transit access from providers like L3 or Verizon.
Maybe the model breaking thing here is that Verizon (and possibly Comcast) are not just either a transit provider or an ISP but simultaneously both. So when they peer with a transit network or each other, then what should their peering agreement look like?
In the past, before Netflix, it seems like L3 and Verizon treated each other as transit providers and they did the typical transit peering agreement where both sides agreed to upgrade their side of the interconnects as needed and no money crossed hands so long as the flow of traffic was roughly even in both directions. Once L3 started hosting Netflix that premise of balanced traffic no longer held. By the letter of their transit peering agreement, Verizon is completely within its rights to refuse to upgrade the interconnect without L3 paying them for the unbalanced load. That is why you don't see L3 trying to sue Verizon to hold it to their peering contract. So, it is L3 that is now trying to change their peering agreement because they don't want to go by the usual transit one because they don't want to pay for the imbalance.
"The difference between L3 and Verizon is willing to charge its customers to cover its costs and Verizon would prefer to have somebody else's customers cover theirs. That's an understandable desire, but not a reasonable one."
I think the first part of that is the key point. Netflix (basically) pays a per Mb/s usage rate to L3 for all its usage (both send and recv). L3's revenue and profits from Netflix, therefore, naturally scale with whatever load that Netflix causes. Meanwhile, residential ISP customers (and probably the ISPs too usually) vastly prefer a fixed monthly cost as opposed to a variable one based off of usage.
If Verizon could charge its customers based on their usage and not lose customers over it, then this should be much less of an issue. If they had such a model and Verizon was still complaining about Netflix then it would be much more fair to conjecture about ulterior motives on their part.
That's a very interesting point! It would roughly double the cost to both Verizon and L3. The difference is that L3 would just turn around and charge Netflix more for the return usage and turn an even larger profit! But your point stands that at least the flow of traffic across the interconnect would be balanced.
I think you are demonstrating that Netflix breaks the typical peering business arrangements between transit carriers. This is exactly the issue that Verizon and other big ISPs are trying to force.
The ultimate problem is that Netflix is extremely popular and is bringing unprecedented amounts of load to ISP networks. Netflix accounts for something like 33% of all Internet traffic during peak usage! However, Netflix doesn't pay the ISP networks and L3 doesn't want to either. So, the ISPs have burgeoning usage requiring upgrades to their network but static revenue.
That's unsustainable. They will be forced to either extract money either directly or indirectly from Netflix or from their end-users. They obviously prefer the former and I agree with them as Netflix is the one most profiting from the massive load that they are causing.
Actually, the business relationships between transit carriers has usually been the opposite of what I think you are saying.
Typically, so long as the traffic flows were roughly equal, then neither side paid anything to the other. When that assumption broke down, then, typically, the network that was trying to push more traffic onto the other one paid and not the other way around.
Why? Because, if not, then every network would be monetarily incentivized to push their traffic off onto other networks always. They'd have less load on their internal networks and, as a bonus, they could actually charge the networks onto which they were dumping.
Except that Verizon is not a mom and pop ISP. They have their own transit backbones. They don't buy transit from others, they peer with other transit networks.
The big ISPs like Verizon and Comcast are not only last mile providers any more. They have their own national long-haul networks too.
Regardless, I agree with your point about the nigh impossibility of balancing traffic between transit providers and solely last mile providers. That does imply that such peering arrangements shouldn't be struck between them. It is unclear what the peering agreement between L3 and Verizon is in this case. All we know is that Mark Taylor from L3 said this: "we have a settlement free peering agreement with Verizon that has been in place for many, many years."
"Their customers have paid them for bandwidth and a connection to other networks. Netflix has paid L3 for their internet connectivity and L3 has delivered up to the Verizon network. Verizon chooses to not provide adequate access even though their customers are the ones pulling the data from Netflix."
That is correct, but you should be able to see that this is an unsustainable model. Let's say Netflix continues growing by leaps and bounds and absolutely dominates as the source of traffic on the Internet, even more so than it already does. L3 gets paid more and more by Netflix for their access bandwidth while Verizon gets absolutely nothing extra but is required to carry more and more load from L3. That can't work or will require last mile providers to continually raise their prices to upgrade their networks due to Netflix.
The alternative that Verizon et al are pushing is that Netflix buy access directly from them rather than through L3. This way, Verizon gets paid for the extra usage that Netflix is causing on their network and everyone is happy -- except L3 who is left out in the cold.
I actually do not know if L3 provides residential service or not. If they do, then it makes up a tiny fraction of what they do. They primarily serve business-to-business as a long haul transit backbone.
"Is the bidirectional peering arrangement based on the *ability* to accept equivalent flow, or on *actual* balanced flow?"
It's the latter. The networks track their interconnect usage and if it gets way out of balance, then usually some kind of deal is struck where the one pushing more load pays the one accepting it. L3 is balking at that now because they've become such a massive source of traffic on the Internet. Basically, it would cut into their profits if they did this, so instead they are throwing up a PR stink and trying to claim that their peers are actually the ones falling down on their commitments to them and their customers.
"they're essentially claiming Netflix/L-3 isn't a "peer", because of their high-content production and deliver - and want them to pay the "imbalanced" rates."
Yeah, that's basically it. L3 is getting hugely paid by Netflix but doesn't want to give any of that money to their peer networks. Instead, L3 wants their peers to upgrade their interconnects and networks to accept the unbalanced load L3 is pushing without any compensation. That's neither fair nor sustainable.
Netflix uses L3 as their primary source network (recently they've been branching out to other service providers too because of issues like this one). Netflix has a business arrangement where they buy an ENORMOUS amount of access bandwidth to L3. Because they are such a huge customer of L3, they obviously get the best deal on their usage rates and other costs with L3, which is a major reason why Netflix did it this way. L3 then tries to ensure that it can carry all of Netflix's (and their other customers') traffic without problem across their network.
However, the vast majority of residential customers don't get their service from L3. Most residential customers get their access from Verizon, Comcast or other residential broadband providers. So, Netflix's traffic has to flow off of L3's long haul network and onto these "downstream" networks through network interconnects (AKA peering points).
In the past, network providers would often agree to interconnect (and upgrade those interconnects as necessary) without any money exchanging hands so long as the traffic flows were roughly equal in both directions. The problem is that because Netflix sends so much data and it uses L3 as its primary network that premise completely breaks down here. Now, L3 wants to push much more data onto its peer networks than those peer networks want to push onto L3.
Basically, Netflix pays L3 a HUGE amount of money for their access and L3 wants their peer networks to upgrade and continuously carry this huge, unbalanced load without the downstream networks seeing one red cent of that money. Understandably, the downstream networks are balking at this.
PS - I'm a software engineer for a company that buys access directly from L3, Comcast, Verizon and others to create our own "private" peering points to carry 3rd party data globally.
These 3 anon posts quoting Mark Taylor are mine. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in ... urgh ...
Good God, I had no idea all our money was handled by Windows!
You'd think they would go for a security centric OS like OpenBSD or something even more exotic rather than Linux or *shudder* Windows. Yeesh.
You are correct that he needs the variable z, but incorrect that he has to cast 'blah' to (uint8_t*).
In C you are not required to cast from (void*) to other kinds of pointers (e.g. - uint8_t*) -- the compiler will do this automatically for you without complaint. In C++ you are, so you generally should always add the cast (e.g. - the return value from malloc) in case your C code gets compiled as C++ at some point.
It looks like he is serializing a 32b unsigned integer out to a buffer in big endian format.
Set up an AMT for corporations that operate in the US. If they are bigger than a certain size in terms of US revenues, then they have to pay a minimum tax rate on those revenues or the usual taxes on profits, whichever is higher.
Yes, that sucks for low margin companies with lots of revenue, but it's likely better than letting very profitable companies like MS, Google, FB and many others get off essentially scot free through international tax games.
I don't even think they re-invented FEC. Instead, they simply applied it to TCP in a transparent way. I'm sure they aren't the first people to do something along these lines.