- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
by E.B. Dreger 10 May '02

10 May '02

Hmmmm.... maybe there should be a "list of peering policies" site a la Jared's NOC page. BTW, has anybody else tried calling the toll-free Sprint NOC number listed on puck.nether.net? Is this a new alternative to on-hold muzak? ;-) (To prevent slashdotting said INWATS line without totally blowing the punchline... let's just say one needs a credit card handy to continue the call.) -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> To: blacklist(a)brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.

1 0

RE: ratios
by Dean S Moran 10 May '02

10 May '02

Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >Your quality of life is affected by being turned down for peering how? Who said I was turned down for peering? When I buy a pipe from an internet provider, I buy it under the assumption that I'm going to be able to see the entire internet from it. I know that probably any given moment, that some small part of the internet is going to be inaccesible due to outages or routing loops, but I do not expect to lose a path to another provider for days because my upstream decides to bully the competition. I depended on, and had customers who depended on, being able to reach AS174, and for years this "just worked" so there was no need to multihome. Short outages, or even overnight outages never hurt us, so single-homing was the way to go. All of that changed when C&W depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? Dean >Steve > > _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

3 2

Re: IP renumbering timeframe
by David R Huberman 10 May '02

10 May '02

I'm not a lawyer and cannot answer the questions you pose. However I fail to see why the interesting legal principles you are espousing have anything to do with the original topic of this thread: an upstream revoking an assignment upon the severing of its relationship with its downstream.

2 1

Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
by Paul Vixie 10 May '02

10 May '02

> I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email > you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just > have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account, > and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm that you do want the account. spam is like pollution in that (a) whenever you're not sure if you're doing it, you probably are, and (b) if everybody did whatever it is, life would be universally worse for, well, everybody. > Random disclaimer: Yes, we're a competitor of no-ip.com's... And yes, we > used to send similar emails to people signing up for an account, > although nowadays instead of sending them an initial password we send a > confirm URL instead. that's the right approach. no-ip's problem was they presumed my permission.

8 10

RE: ratios
by smd＠clock.org 10 May '02

10 May '02

| I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen Tough. Sean. (who do you blame for losing alot of credibility? aliens?)

1 0

Re: IP renumbering timeframe
by David R Huberman 09 May '02

09 May '02

DS writes: > Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its > policies as a condition of IP address allocations. In the real world ARIN only looks at existing assignments to judge the worthiness of an additional address space request. It doesn't look at nor care about non-existent assignments. DS writes: > Third parties can make reasonable arguments that they have standing to > litigate these requirements on the grounds that the requirements were > intended to benefit the public in general and hence they are intended > beneficiaries. ARIN plays, at most, an advisory role to upstream/downstreams vis-a-vis appropriate assignments. It does not get involved with legal disputes nor does it ever directly instruct businesses how to conduct their affairs Sure: organizations have successfully gotten more appropriate assignments from upstreams by thrusting ARIN policies in front of an obstinate upstream's face. Good. But those policies in no way preclude an upstream from taking away downstream assignments - especially in the case of this thread, where the customer/upstream relationship was terminated. Can we please stop this non-argument now? I agree with what you've said: ARIN policies are good for those trying to obtain appropriate assignments. But the more basic argument of "will I make an assignment to my downstream" or "will I allow this assignment to remain in effect" has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

2 2

ratios
by Scott Granados 09 May '02

09 May '02

Just a note here I think needs to be said. In my case at least my experiences with peering and working with other networks has been extremely positive. I had the pleasure of for example having a loop in to Paix Pao1 and that was a very positive thing for my network and frankly business. Most of the carriers I spoke to were great and very responsive with the exception of the one I mentioned before and no it wasn't uunet or cnw. I have peered obviously in other facilities as well but I mentioned the Paix because in my case the impression was they went out of their way to be helpful and it was very positive. I think that its perhaps the sign of a larger problem that the public internet is basically help by one or two large companies ie UU and CW who don't wish to play with the rest of the net but not much can be done about that and no I'm not going to equate this ti Microsoft:). In the end let's hope market forces and economics win out and we'll see.

1 0

Re: IP renumbering timeframe
by David R Huberman 09 May '02

09 May '02

Just because policies are in place that suggest an assignment may or may not be justified is wholly irrelevant to whether or not that assignment takes place (or in the case of the original thread, stays in place). ARIN is not in the business of saying "do" or "do not". Ralph wrote: > >>Is that true? I thought the space belongs to ARIN, and they loan it to > >>certain parties. Those parties can use the IPs in accordance with ARIN > >>rules. I responded: > >The way you've written the above statements makes them true. However, such > >a relationship does not extend to the issue you're dealing with. ARIN > >cannot dictate the business practices of its constituents. DS retorted: > Actually, ARIN can dictate how its constituents allocate IP space > because conforming to ARIN's policies is one of the conditions of an IP > allocation and no ownership rights to the IP space are transferred in > the assignment process. This argument has worked successfully for myself > and others when negotiations with an address space provider turned > hostile. (To my knowledge, it's never been tested in court.)

2 1

RE: ratios
by Dean S Moran 09 May '02

09 May '02

Chris Parker wrote: >At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote: >>You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful >>effect. > >It informs other networks of the actions taken by said carrier. Od carrier. Other >networks may in turn change *their* business decisions based on that >information. Right! With the (mostly) unregulated nature of the internet as it stands right now, sometimes this is the only recourse we have when a provider does something stupid. Hopefully it'll cause said provider to wake up and smell the roses, but with C&W I doubt it. They're too egotistical to cave in to public pressure. >>Additionally, punishing folks for enforcing rational peering >>requirements is counterproductive. What's so rational about asking for 5000 routes? >Rational is a pretty subjective concept. :) Overly restrictive >covenants wrt housing have been struck down in the past. One could >make an analogy to overly restrive peering agreements if one wanted >to go down that particular rat hole... I actually hope it happens, real soon. >>I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, >>and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by >>personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity. > How can I not take it personally when this person's business decision directly and immediately affected mine? Not to mention my quality of life, which is still recovering. Dean _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

2 1

RE: ratios
by Scott Granados 09 May '02

09 May '02

I guess one of the concerns it the definition of peer. The policies as I read bhem by cnw and uunet seem to be so overly restrictive that none of the newer carriers will meet them. I've litterllly, not from uunet and or cw but from other carriers received responses to peering requests "Well your to small to peer but we have great transit pricing in the areas you requested." This is after I offered to meet them at the three east, west, and central mae's, a coupee if diverse paix's, and Chicago. If the concern is economics than peering ss much as possible and in a less restrictive manner makes the most sense. The target here is to provide the best possible service to customers which certainly ocould be other carriers, but are most likely more other end users. If performance is better it will in many cases be an easier sell. More than a few times prospective customers were very concerned with peering and interconnection. But then again I was up against uunet in a play to get a customer and uunet promised this customer they could globally route and announce to its peers /30's or longer. :) I certainly couldn't make such claims. I'm mentioning this because it seems in all companies, not just uunet claims are maid but frequently not backed up by technical good sense. I guess its like most things there are many approaches and certainly not everyone will agree to each approach. I just can't see cases when not peering is better assuming the basic requirements are met to insure proper technical performance. On Thu, 9 May 2002, David Barak wrote: > > On Thu, 9 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote: > > > > The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically > > acknowledge that fact. If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should > > just not have a peering policy. > > come now, UU and C&W both have a substantive number of peers. Their > policies tend toward equating the routing concept of "peer" with the > english-language concept of "peer" meaning "equal." > > The whole argument is that settlement-free-interconnection is only > worthwhile if both parties benefit more than they would lose if they did > not interconnect. > > The economics of this will tend to encourage smaller providers to be more > liberal with peering agreements, and larger providers to be less > liberal. Does this still seem unfair? > > David Barak > WorldCom > > "Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?" - Juvenal > >

1 0