- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Fw: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> Time to quote Geoff Huston one more time. > > "A true peer relationship is based on the supposition that either party > can terminate the interconnection relationship and that the other party > does not consider such an action a competitively hostile act. If one > party has a high reliance on the interconnection arrangement and the > other does not, then the most stable business outcome is that this > reliance is expressed in terms of a service contract with the other > party, and a provider/client relationship is established" Those people less versed in the art of peering may not understand why the peer who has been disconnected does not consider the action to be competitively hostile. Simply put, in a true peer relationship, the party who terminates the interconnection is shooting themselves in the foot and inflicting as much commercial pain on themselves as they are inflicting on their peer. The reason that it is not "competitively" hostile is because it does not increase the ability of either peer to compete. Rather, it damages both of them equally because true peers are equals to begin with. As vijay points out, this whole issue is not really about true peering because such equality between peering partners is rare. It's really about the business case for settlement free interconnect and that is rather more complex than merely the choice between "free" traffic exchange and paid transit. --Michael Dillon P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic exchange was paid for and there was no settlement free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid full transit and paid partial transit on the menu?

2 1

New talks for LA
by Susan Harris 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

Greetings - We've added a few new talks for LA, marked with ***. Abstracts are at http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0510/topics.html. SUNDAY ACTIVITIES ----------------- - All-day Tutorial (9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.) Getting Started with IPv6 Level: Introductory Jordi Palet, Consulintel - Afternoon Tutorials - Best Practices for Determining the Traffic Matrix in IP Networks Level: Intermediate Thomas Telkamp, Cariden - Scaling Considerations in MPLS Networks Level: Intermediate/Advanced Ina Minei, Juniper - BGP Multihoming Techniques Level: Introductory/Intermediate Philip Smith, Cisco ** Steering Committee Community Meeting, 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. ** Welcome Reception! Details to follow, 7:30 - ? GENERAL SESSION --------------- *** - NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering Networks Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick, UNINETT *** - Route/Flow Fusion--Making Traffic Measurement Useful Van Jacobson, Haobo Yu, and Bruce Mah, Packet Design *** - Infrastructure Security Survey Overview Craig Labovitz and Danny McPherson, Arbor *** - IPv6 Deployment Issues: A Tier 1 Perspective Stewart Bamford, Level3 - Near-term Futures for the Industry Geoff Huston, APNIC - AS Consumption Patterns Geoff Huston, APNIC - ASNs MIA: A Comparision of RIR Statistics and RIS Reality Rene Wilhelm and Henk Uijterwaal, RIPE NCC - Stager: Web-Based Statistics Displays Arne Oslebo, Uninett - Shim6: Network Operator Concerns Jason Schiller, UUNET - BLINC: Multilevel Traffic Classification in the Dark Thomas Karagiannis, UC Riverside; Konstantina Papagiannaki, Intel Research; Michalis Faloutsos, UC Riverside - Should Internet Service Providers Fear Peer-Assisted Content? Thomas Karagiannis, UC Riverside; Pablo Rodriguez, Microsoft Research; Konstantina Papagiannaki, Intel Research - Mitigating Superfluous Multicast Data Traffic and Control State John Kristoff, Northwestern Univ. - Routers with Small Buffers Yashar Ganjali, Guido Appenzeller, Ashish Goel, Tim Roughgarden, and Nick McKeown, Stanford Univ. RESEARCH FORUM -------------- *** - Geographic Locality of IP Prefixes Mike Freedman, NYU; Mythili Vutukuru, Nick Feamster, and Hari Balakrishnan, MIT *** - Mining Anomalies in Network-Wide Flow Data Anukool Lakhina, Mark Crovella, and Christophe Diot, Thomson Paris Research Lab - Dynamic AS Renumbering.Research & Results on new BGP Mechanisms Sue Hares, NextHop, and Patrick Bose, Lockheed-Martin SPECIAL TUESDAY TUTORIAL ------------------------ - Getting to Know ARIN (1:00-1:30 p.m.) Ray Plzak, ARIN MONDAY AFTERNOON BOFS --------------------- - IAB IPv6 Multi-Homing BOF Dave Meyer, Cisco, moderator - BGP Data Analysis BOF Mohit Lad, Lixia Zhang, and Yiguo Wu, UCLA Nick Feamster, MIT; Dan Massey, Colorado State University; Manish Karir, Merit - ISP Security and NSP-SEC BOF X Danny McPherson, Arbor, moderator - Peering BOF X William B. Norton, Equinix, moderator

1 0

depeering season?
by Jon Lewis 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

I've been told verbally (still waiting for it in writing) that UUNet and TWTC (4323) are about to depeer (today?). I wouldn't have guessed TWTC had SFI with UUNet...so maybe they're just falling back from paid peering to cheaper transit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

1 0

RE: VoIP outage (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> 1000 users, 15 hours, isn't all that much when you think about it - At some > point in the near future, an split such as this is almost assured ofhaving FCC > attention due to the consequential consumer & business impact. If I understand the way existing VoIP service work, this depeering situation means that VoIP customers, trying to call from one network to another, will not be able to connect because the VoIP provider does not relay voice packets. So the VoIP provider will see that both the calling and called party are on the net, however the flow of voice packets will fail. Has anyone asked Vonage and others what they think of this? It is almost certain to be affecting some of their customers. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Banks and VCs (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> All the > while, Cogent undercuts the market of every other carrier who isn't as > efficient as they are, leading to massive losses, bankruptcy filing after > bankruptcy filing, out of court reorganizations and purchases for foreign > companies, etc. Banks and Venture Capitalists love this. They think in terms of markets, not in terms of companies. Banks and VCs both make more money when a market is not overcrowded with competitors. Obviously, if you can spend a bit of money to fund a company which will kill off all the weaker competitors, and make that money back in a strong company who benefits from larger market share, then it makes sense in the big picture. I don't have any evidence that this is what is happening in this case, however this kind of thing is done to stabilise markets. To the winner go the spoils. All the network assets are not destroyed. For the most part they are aggregated into the networks of companies who buy the bankrupt assets. Sometimes a network operator will buy and integrate a functioning network. Other times, the corporate customer base will buy the boxes and become more likely to buy bandwidth from surviving operators. > To force either > one to peer by law or regulation would be even more disruptive to the > industry as a whole, which may even lead to a complete collapse of the > existing peering system as we know it. I think that's too harsh. It would certainly lead to change but that is not the same as collapse. If companies were forced by law to peer, then they would have to do so under a settlement system. Since IP network revenue flow is not based on the end-point usage (per minute call charges) there is no need to engage in massive data collection and analysis as the voice business does. Something based simply on netflow data from peering interconnects combined with the the average bandwidth price on each companies top ten customer contracts would add very little cost to computing the settlement amount. I don't advocate one way or another. But I do expect to see things change when there is instability. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> Depeering never makes sense to me. Customers of both companies are > expecting their vendor to connect them to the customers of the other > company. These customers are each paying their respective vendor for > this service. Why should one vendor pay the other for this traffic that > is mutually beneficial to them while the other pays nothing? Why does > the amount of bandwidth or the direction it travels make any difference? > The customers are PAYING for the bandwidth. If each vendor pays their > own costs to a peering point then they should be passing that cost onto > their respective customers as part of the *customer's* bandwidth bill. Perhaps someone wants to make this argument before a judge in order to set a legal precedent for mandatory peering with settlements? --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Who is a Tier 1? (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> Cogent and L3 had _no_ interconnectivity besides the direct peering > relationship. L3 knew it, Cogent knew it. L3 made a decision to > sever that direct relationship, and bifurcation ensued. This was not > only not a surprised, it was expected. Whether Cogent is a "tier > one" or not is irrelevant to the decision, and the resulting effects. I suspect that the consumer definition of "Tier 1" is something like "provides good connectivity to the entire Internet". By this definition, L3 and Cogent are not currently tier 1 providers. The consumers that I had in mind are the VP finance types who approve the spend on Internet services. A few years ago you could probably bamboozle them about your secret sauce containing "transit free", "peering", "x exchange points" and so on. Today I suspect they are less susceptible to that kind of story and more likely to rely on the experience of existing customers. And if the existing customers of L3 and Cogent are experiencing agony, what kind of marketing story does that tell? --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
by Evren Demirkan 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

Ok So what, I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in plain English? Evren Demirkan

30 65

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
by Hannigan, Martin 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> Now Cogent is also offering free transit for single-homed > L3 customers to spite L3 after depeering - majority of such > single-homed > transit customers are in fact these dsl/dialup ISPs Cogent is after > which is why they were willing to make this offer ... Didn't the free peering offer happen _yesterday_ as a result of the disengagement? It's a tactic. Tommorrow, Level(3) could come out with the same. It's not sustainable by either. Nothing is free. We all know this. > > Now with 0 transit cost and 0 equipment cost (mostly old > dialup equipment > loans for which have by now been paid for) You mean amortization? Yes, it's about that. They deployed most of the dial gear in 98, 99. I'm sure augmentations happened after that. Anyhow. What you don't understand is the architecture sans TDM switching, ala SS7 bypass. That's what makes the $5 nut a reality. > its no wonder > dialup providers > are able to offer it at $5/mo if somebody else takes care of > the customer > support & billing ... That's what the other $1 to $10 dollars the retailers are charging is for, William. -M<

1 0

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
by Hannigan, Martin 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> You say that as if the only move to be made is on Cogent's > side. What > about L3? If every L3 customer complained to L3, demanded service > credits, claimed the contract was in default, and swore to never buy > from L3 again, maybe L3 would budge instead. > How is this relevant again? What IX's do you peer at? -M<

1 0