Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Note - those aren't VM's servers. Those are Google's servers sitting on VM's network, and the issue was problems with the port-channel between the two which ended up being a bug with vendor equipment.
|
That pretty much proves the "partnership" then... Google hosting servers on VM's network using VM's IPs, for VM customers... I may have been a bit inaccurate with the wording, I wasn't meaning to imply VM owned them, but as above, VM gave Google some of their IPs and a direct connection to their network.
P.S. You wouldn't happen to know if it was a GGC node or something proprietary for VM would you?
---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan
I recall there being a bunch of different "methods" to bypassing the problem, one of which was blocking (if I recall) ntli.com or something, another was blocking Level3's IP's. None of the methods supplied were definitive, with different people reporting different results - including many for whom nothing worked.
|
Neither of those methods actually "bypass" the problem, which is no surprise they didn't work properly.
That was just pure conjecture.
Those who used a provably correct method had a 100% success rate, barring issues that have nothing to do with Youtube such as congestion on a local VM segment.
Quote:
|
However, that's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you to provide a source where VM is claiming to have partnered with Google or Youtube specifically to improve the service. So far, you've only supplied conjecture.
|
I don't need to answer that because nobody ever claimed it happened - you just made it up on the spot. What I said though was not conjecture in any way when we have hard proof it happened. If you choose not to believe that, that's your problem. Go harass VM if you want a public statement, not me.