- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
by Sean Donelan 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

On Thu, 26 July 2001, "Nipper, Arnold" wrote: > Sean Donelan schrieb: > > > exchange points. Some of the additional exchange points have grown very > > large, such as CIX, MAE-West, LINX, AMS-IX, even though they didn't have > > NSF's "stamp of approval." > > > > Why should LINX, AMS-IX, DE-CIX or any other European IXP need NSF's "stamp > of approval"? I don't think european, japanese, or even other US IXP's require NSF's "stamp of approval." I was pointing out there are a number of IXP which were not created by NSF's process. But some folks think "NAP" refers only to the NSF identified exchange points, and unless the government approves your NAP, there is some type of anti-trust issue with ISPs deciding to exchange traffic at a non-NSF NAP. I don't think that is true. The NSF stopped funding all the NAPs several years ago. Other than a historical oddity, there is nothing different about the NSF NAP and non-NSF exchange points.

1 0

update frequencies in routing protocols
by srihari varada 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

Hello All: I would appreciate, if some one could provide me with the routing table update frequencies that are typically configured for the BGP-4 and OSPF protocols. Regards, Srihari Varada

1 0

Re: 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..'
by Marshall Eubanks 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

> This is, in fact, what we do; it still makes me nervous. Marshall > > >On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > How many of us here run anything less than SSH and even allow telnetd >> to >> >>> > live on any of our hosts? >> >> Hey, we have had to do without SSH in more than one CISCO IOS build in the last >> 6 months in 12.1 / 12.2. >> >> This always made me feel very nervous. >> > > > > One way of avoiding this is to always have a console server that has >SSH implemented into the IOS build ( or even a separate vendor that >supports SSH ). This way you centrally access your network devices from >one spot, authenticated by SSH, if any of the devices in question do not >support SSH ( yes this can be impractical, but I typically want to have >console access to every device I administer if possible anyway ). > > > >.z > Marshall Eubanks tme(a)21rst-century.com

1 0

Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
by rs＠seastrom.com 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

"Nipper, Arnold" <arnold(a)nipper.de> writes: > Sean Donelan schrieb: > > > exchange points. Some of the additional exchange points have grown very > > large, such as CIX, MAE-West, LINX, AMS-IX, even though they didn't have > > NSF's "stamp of approval." > > > > Why should LINX, AMS-IX, DE-CIX or any other European IXP need NSF's "stamp > of approval"? At the time, the "center of the universe" was AS690, which was paid for by US taxpayer money and consequently had an AUP. The NAPs were envisioned as a transitional mechanism away from that arrangement. A lot of us at the time wondered aloud why NSF needed to provide a stamp of approval on US-based exchange points, as the FIXes, MAE East, and Milo's setup at NASA-Ames were already going concerns without any kind of endorsement from the NSF. Some companies (notably UUnet) thought this was gratuitous enough that they never showed up at any NAPs. ---Rob

2 1

RE: The large ISPs and Peering
by Roeland Meyer 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

There is the larger problem of anti-trust issues. Those large providers collectively represent more than 60% of the market. I believe that this is the real basis of the concern. Such an arrangement could be construed as being anti-competitive. Were IBM to make such an arrangement with IBM and AT&T then DOJ might become very active. The same holds true here. Companies holding such large market-share control cannot quite do things the way that they want because we (collectively) have made laws that have deemed such activities as public-policy effecting activities and subject to some regulation, by public bodies. I don't see where that has changed. Even in the spirit of telcom co-opetition, such activity can still be construed as collusion. I'm suprised that their lawyers let them do that. Also, the past 30-years of track-record clearly shows that such activity cannot be kept secret. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Aitken [mailto:jaitken@aitken.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:16 AM > To: Curtis Maurand > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: The large ISPs and Peering > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:21:54AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote: > > A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows > us, that > > when cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. [...] > > However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because > > the process for choosing them was closed. > > This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that uninvolved > parties should be able to dictate where and how large "promising > local ISPs" should interconnect? Maybe we should have a vote on > NANOG! > > "How does this choice of interconnection point make you feel?" > > > > Does it make sense for all of > > my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in > Maine and in > > the same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 > miles away? > > There's nothing preventing your provider from establishing additional > regional peering where appropriate; if they fail to provide the level > of service that you require you should vote with your wallet > and select > another provider. > > > > There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." > > They will collude on network build out and stop competing [...] > > If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out all those > strides [...] > > A consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices. > > The consortium will control supply at a lower level. > > Prices will increase. > > Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price. > > There's nobody to compete with, so why keep the price down? > > If you think that's not true, think again. > > Proof by repeated assertion, eh? > > I'm really confused here. How did we go from "certain large ISPs > are working together to reduce the cost of interconnection amongst > themselves" to "there will be no competition between these large > providers?" > > > --Jeff >

1 0

Re: The large ISPs and Peering
by rs＠seastrom.com 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

Curtis Maurand <curtis(a)lamere.net> writes: > A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that when > cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. Oil, Electricity, > telecomm. However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because > the process for choosing them was closed. Does it make sense for all of > my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in the > same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away? See other mail on this same topic. The placement of the NAPs was not a closed process. If you want to exchange traffic directly with maine.rr.com, you should approach them directly and see if you can work out an arrangement with them. Be prepared to make a business and technical case that is appealing to both sides. This may come as a surprise to you, but being at an exchange point is not a guarantee that any particular organization that is there will be willing to trade traffic with your organization. There's no advantage to being at an exchange point other than quickness of provisioning connections between companies; you still have to meet whatever criteria your prospective partner sets forth for traffic exchange. > > I don't see this as a bad thing. What you say about price equalization > > followed by increases may be true, but it seems unlikely to me for a few > > reasons. > > > > 1. There's a fiber 6glut. > > There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." They will collude > on network build out and stop competing with each other. If you think > that's not true, think again. It's hard enough to get backbone providers to cooperate on legal stuff, let alone collude to perform illegal restraint of trade. If none of the big boys takes you seriously, it is probably not a conspiracy, just confirmation that you're small fry. But hey, we could all be wrong, in which case you can at least hitch a ride of Vijay's flying pig... ---Rob

1 0

Peering, Cartelephony, and you
by David Barak 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

Quoth Curtis Maurand: >A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history >shows us, that when >cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. Oil, >Electricity, >telecomm. However, The placement of the NAP's is >disconcerting, because >the process for choosing them was closed. Does it >make sense for all of >my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both >in Maine and in the >same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 >miles away? Depends on what you mean by "Cartel," doesn't it? Would you describe a shopping mall as a cartel? In fact, the locations of shopping malls are generally very influenced by local population demographics and geography. So too any new exchange points. Obviously Nordstroms, Sears, Hechts, etc. have a much bigger impact on the location of shopping malls than the peace frogs store does. Thus, the few "really big ISPs" are going to be the ones who determine where they want services to be provided, and by virtue of their larger $$, will have much more weight than the small ISPs. This isn't surprising - any more than it should surprise you that McDonalds has a bigger impact on Cattle producers than your small regional chain does. Regarding where your traffic goes, if you're concerned about your traffic to maine.rr.com, you should get a circuit with them (either peer or customer). If you have done neither of these things, it certainly is not the fault of larger ISPs. >There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." > They will collude >on network build out and stop competing with each >other. If you think >that's not true, think again. Well, I wouldn't theoretically rule out collusion, but it IS illegal - so therefore, the big ISPs do have a pretty strong incentive to avoid the appearence of collusion, and most of the "really big ISPs" have services which are diverse enough to mean that they are still competing for many of the same customers... All this having been said, while I don't have a problem with the idea of there being a smaller number of "mega-colos," I'd be surprised if the "really big ISPs" are in the financial position right now to look at spending a lot of money on (of all things) peering [ie. something which does not generate revenue]. -David Barak "Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?" - Juvenal __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

1 0

NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
by Sean Donelan 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

On Thu, 26 July 2001, Curtis Maurand wrote: > A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that when > cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. Oil, Electricity, > telecomm. However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because > the process for choosing them was closed. Does it make sense for all of > my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in the > same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away? The first selection of the NAP's was an "open" process a number of years ago when a group at NSF choose where to place the NAPs. NSF issued an RFP, there were a number of proposals received, committees of outside experts, notification through public notice, etc. At that time three NAPs were chosen (San Francisco, Chicago, and New York) and one alternate (Washingington DC). Over the last half-decade, and additional public exchange points have been formed, and probably an equal number of private exchange points. Some of the additional exchange points have grown very large, such as CIX, MAE-West, LINX, AMS-IX, even though they didn't have NSF's "stamp of approval." If maine.rr.com and lamere.net want to exchange traffic in Maine, nothing changed. The existance or non-existance of a group of national exchange points doesn't change the argument for or against local exchange points. I still believe it makes sense for local and regional ISPs to have local and regional exchange points. You don't need an OC48 to peer with other ISPs in your region. A couple of years ago, when several large carriers decided that NAPs didn't make sense and they could provision private circuits directly between each other better, faster cheaper; several of us (see the NANOG archives) argued it didn't make economic or engineering sense. I even argued ending the existance of public NAPs raised the barrier to entry for new market entrants because of the "combination problem." For example, if everyone requires three points of interconnection, with common NAPs a new market entrant needs to build out three inter-city locations at the common NAPs. But if five major ISPs each require three points of interconnection, but they each choose a different set of cities for new entrants to connect to their networks, a new entrant may need to build 15 inter-city locations. The IETF holds a common meeting of its working groups in location three times a year. While participants going to a single working group may not find it as efficient than having private meetings, it is more efficient for people who want to attend multiple working group meetings to hold them all at the same location. Airlines have created "hub cities." However, airlines set up their hubs so most of them don't overlap. The other alternative is setting up a common location with most of the major competitors, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the Chicago Board of Trade. Markets can be more efficient if all the participants know they can go to a common location, and compete in that location. Markets seem less efficient when competitors have seperate hub locations. Are there downside risks, of course. When the CIX router moved from the Worldcom Santa Clara POP to the PAIX, at least one major ISP used that change as an opportunity to terminate some of its peering. Did the presence of the CIX router increase the business at the PAIX, probably. But its not a given. LINX has built out the LINX fabric in several locations in London. The presences of the LINX helped some locations, and didn't help other locations. If Telehouse has problems in London, the existance of the LINX magnifies the impact. If the New York Stock Exchange has a problem, it affects a lot more companies than if they each traded on seperate exchanges.

2 1

Re: OT: is it possible for an individual (not a business) to get a valid SSL certificate
by Jim Mercer 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 10:50:41AM -0400, Noah wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Jim Mercer wrote: > > i want to get a useful SSL certificate for my personal webserver. > > (and have customers who would like to do so as well). > > > > i've talked to cibc.com/verisign, the canadian verisign affiliate, and they > > tell me they can only do certificates for registered businesses. > > You may want to give equifax a shot (http://www.equifaxsecure.com/) They > have a "Non-Government Organization" category, which requires letterhead > from the CEO of the company confirming proof of right. They also have the > mondo-spiffy wildcard caertificates (cert works for *.domain.dom). while it would be trivial for me to go out and register "Jim Mercer & Company" as a proprietorship ($50 CDN registration fee for 5 years i think), i fail to see why this is necessary. a person is a business, in that it is a taxable entity, can incur debt, etc, etc, etc. should a copy of my passport not suffice? as a follow-up, i eventually ended up talking to the Toronto office of Thawte, and they will accept: - passport/drivers license - bank statement, tax roll notice or other paper showing address and "existence" - paper letter from the admin contact of the domain deeming the individual as responsible for the SSL certificate (if the individual's name does not appear as the "owner" of the domain). after some discussion, it was agreed that a passport would double both as verification of ID, as well as certification of recognition by an outside entity (ie. the government). as such, i can likely get an SSL certificate with just my passport, drivers license (as a secondary piece of documentation) and a letter deeming me as responsible for the domainname (as my name does not actually exist as the registrant, but i am the admin contact). > There's also www.freessl.com, but their cert only works with IE5.01 or > better. is netscape going to add them as a default as well? -- [ Jim Mercer jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ] [ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]

4 5

OT: is it possible for an individual (not a business) to get a valid SSL certificate
by Jim Mercer 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

i want to get a useful SSL certificate for my personal webserver. (and have customers who would like to do so as well). i've talked to cibc.com/verisign, the canadian verisign affiliate, and they tell me they can only do certificates for registered businesses. i'm currently on hold with verisign USA waiting to talk to someone there, but figured i'd punt the question here. -- [ Jim Mercer jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ] [ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]

2 1