So, just another systemd rant.

RedHat has contributed a lot of very cool things to Linux. They have acquired software and opensourced it (e.g. Sistina, Qumranet, Sun/iPlanet LDAP server). They work not only to make a good distro, but also try to solve the bigger problems. For example, they have put together an awesome set of tools that brings Active Directory-like functions to Linux (easy to deploy Kerberos, LDAP, certificate server). They are working on OpenLMI which provides Linux with WBEM management functions. Their Atomic host project is also very interesting. Again, all opensource.

As far as systemd goes. So far I like it. It hasn't burned me at all. Quite the opposite, it has made it easier to write init scripts for our in-house software.

Oh, and BTW, you did hear that the FreeBSD is considering replacing their init system, right? Maybe even something like systemd or launchd (see http://www.slideshare.net/iXsystems/jordan-hubbard-free-bsd-the-next-10-years

It doesn't. The Netflix issues were never about Net Neutrality. I have tried to explain that countless times. The problem is that people are so blinded by their hate of cable companies and their ignorance of how peering works that it doesn't sink in. Peering is a good thing. The Netflix deal actually helps the little guy that can't afford peering to have more bandwidth over the backbones and cable company transit connections. Netflix played people. I suspect they used threats of Net Neutrality in negotiations. It never had to benefit them. It never had to really be all that bad, just the threat was good enough. Now the FCC had a foot in the door, we should all be scared. It seems to me that governments have a worse track record of stifling free speech than companies do.

Wrong? Rearlly? Netflix has peering with the ISP's right now! It is working! Netflix even said they liked the outcome in their stockholder's meeting. The host inside the network still requires a connection that is over 1Gb/s. Sometimes it makes more sense to peer. Netflix got in trouble because they tried to use the government to negotiate peering. Netflix is not pure and clean. Yeah, the outcome worked out for them, but at the risk of the FCC stepping in and changing everything. Now Netflix isn't too sure it likes Title II regulation. I know everyone hates the cable companies, but they were not treating Netflix any different from any other peer, once Netflix decided to peer directly instead of using a 3rd party.

It is *completely* logical. The reason VPN works is because your are reaching your VPN endpoint via the transit connection. The VPN endpoint node was on a network that either had no peering with Netflix or the peering point was not overloaded.

Peering exchanges traffic between two networks. Your VPN host would have to be inside the Netflix network to experience the same issues as raw streaming.,

Comcast was NOT throttling. Cogent didn't not purchase enough bandwidth from Comcast via the peering port to handle all the traffic. Not only that, but Cogent didn't want to purchase more bandwidth because Cogent enjoys mainly settlement-free peering. Cogent *admitted* that *they* were throttling. They probably wished they had never taken on Netflix as a customer.

People, please learn how peering and the peering fee structure works before asking the FCC to stomp around and change the Internet!

Netflix was using Level3 for peering Netflix traffic. You benefited from that.

It is more complicated than that. Netflix was not, initially, buying peering directly. They were using Cogent and Level3's peering. Once Netflix did their own peering, things cleared up.

Ummmmmmm.... No. Peering costs. It is NOT true that ISP charges customers only. Well, unless you count Netflix and others as customers, in which case, yes, Netflix is charged.

I know you stated that you are a network admin, but apparently you don't know that the *sender* pays in a peering agreement. It has been this way for a long, long time.

Now it is true that some content providers did cut deals in the early days. For example, it was reported years ago that Yahoo! only payed for half of their transit costs because they built out their own national network and peered with large ISP's. AOL did something similar. But, traditionally, peering costs money. That is why there is something called "settlement-free peering" where both sides can all it "even" and skip paying each other. I know you *think* that the other side should pay, but that is not the reality. It is the way it is. You can argue for a new model, but you would be radically changing the fee model for the Internet.

Either way, this has NOTHING to do with Net Neurality!

"Netflix has not asked for a dime of ISP money to peer"... .wha???? The traffic is coming from Netflix to the ISP. Netflix is the one required to pay the fee, not the other way around. The network *sending* the traffic pays the other network to deliver the traffic. That is the way it has always been. Netflix was in a pinch because Cogent didn't want to upgrade the peering links because it would have cost them more money when they are used to settlement-free peering. Now that Netflix is peering directly, they are pretty happy. It was stated as such in their stock holder report.

The caching box from Netflix requires a connection greater than 1Gb/s. For a large ISP, the caching box may or not make sense. It just depends on the diversity and size of the customer base. Peering may be the logical solution in a large city where there is a nice meet me room.

My main point is that Netflix is not the innocent party. Netflix tried to con their customers into getting the government to help them. They thought they could use it as leverage in negotiation. Now they state that they didn't really want the FCC to go as far as Title II. Oops.

Peering is a good thing. Peering can *save* money for the content producer. Stop talking about stuff you do not understand. Netflix issues are not Net Neutrality issues. Netflix has said that their bandwidth costs are tiny compared to what they pay to the studios.

Spoken like a person that has no idea how peering works and how it is payed for. There are two ways to deliver a packet: transit or peering. With transit you don't care how a packets routes. You are also using an ISP to deliver packets on networks they do not own. So you are paying for bandwidth to your box and the bandwidth that leaves their network. Peering is priced based on the idea that you are paying the peering network to deliver your packet in their network. You pay each network you peer with a fee to deliver the packets. If two networks are peering and both networks are sending about the same amount of data to each other then they call it a wash and setup a settlement-free agreement. This is how the Internet always works. Netflix is not being treated differently.

Where Netflix messed up is that they used other companies to setup peering. They trusted Cogent to peer with ISP's. I like Cogent, but the problem with Cogent is that they pride themselves in settlement-free peering. They peer with everyone and they don't pay for transit. When they took on Netflix as a customer, their peering points were not balanced anymore. The ISP's told them they were not settlement-free, but Cogent didn't want pay. The also didn't want to upgrade the peering points because it would only make things worse for them.

Netflix took on peering themselves and they will be better off.

Netflix is NOT an example of Net Neutrality violations! Stop using them as the poster child of Net Neutrality. Please people, stop it!

I run Fedora/RHEL boxes. Fedora 15 had some issues when it introduced systemd. I haven't had issues since. RHEL7 has been smooth. Try using a mature systemd distro and see if it works for you.

I understand why a company would worry about this. They want to save their business and don't want to be wrapped up in something bad. But here is the thing, it seems to me that in this country where we ask the question "Is this legal?" way too often. This is just one case of it. We have natural rights in this country. The Bill of Rights limits what the government can do that could threaten those rights. Buying a machine to make weapons to defend yourself is a natural right. Note, that making a gun for yourself is different than buying one of the machines to make guns to sell to others. That *is* covered by law. Building guns for others makes you a gun manufacturer. The default position should be for a company to say there is no law that limits an individual exercising their right and until there is, we will ship it.

Update.... Chef 12.0.3 up and running on RHEL7!

To clarify... All the boxes in the project are RHEL7 with the exception of the Chef 12 server. The Chef 12 Server currently runs RHEL6. Chef Server 12.0.3 supports RHEL7, but I have yet to test it. All RHEL7 boxes run chef-client 12 without issues.

I've been working a new new project where we are using Chef 12 and RHEL7. So far no issues. I *like* the systemd service files. We whipped up custom files in no time. SUPER simple. The /var/log/messages file is still there. No difference. My only beef is that Chef 12 server only runs on RHEL6 right now. Chef says that RHEL7 support is coming and it works in the 12.0.3 release. I haven't tried it yet.

Am I the only person that does not have trouble with systemd? I've been using RH since 3.0.3 days. Before that I was running Slackware. Maybe I am a rare sysadmin that doesn't mind some change.