- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

C&W Explination (fwd)
by Andy Dills 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

Interesting...can anybody confirm that ATT and UU were going to drop PSI as well? Or is this just C&W doing their best to spin? Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:46:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher X. Candreva <chris(a)westnet.com> Reply-To: list(a)inet-access.net To: list(a)inet-access.net Subject: C&W Explination According to my sales rep: PSI has been in violation of peering agreements with C&W, AT&T, and Worldcom for some time now, in his words "just dumping lots of traffic on to our networks". All three companies were slated to disconnect peering this weekend. However, only C&W had done so BEFORE the Chapter 11 filing. One they filed, the others were prevented from doing so. Since they never made any kind of anouncement, C&W ended up looking like idiots. Which, since they didn't make any announcement, I say they they actually are. >From my conversations, it's evident that the sales force had no idea about this until they started getting complaints, and from the conversation I just had, I do believe that they (or at least my rep) were argueing with management to have the peering restored. Not any kind of excuse, but I figure the guys who did right deserve credit. ========================================================== Chris Candreva -- chris(a)westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ - Recent archives of the list can be found at: http://mix.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/inet-access/ Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request(a)inet-access.net' to leave. Eat sushi frequently. inet(a)inet-access.net is the human contact address.

2 1

Internet Traffic Discovery?
by Craig A. Haney 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

didn't we all already know this? http://financial.washingtonpost.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=BW20… -craig

9 10

RE: Hosting Failover Question
by Paul Froutan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

Ideally, I wouldn't find any kind of "session" to time out. Almost everyone is fine with short outages (few seconds) as long as their apps don't time out. While 5 seconds is great, I think you'll have a hard time getting there. You'll have to exchange tons of "hello" type packets which means you're flooding a lot of traffic. You can control it at ports, but it's still a pain. At 6/6/01, you wrote: >I am interested what I should design to. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Froutan [mailto:pfroutan@rackspace.com] >Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:23 PM >To: Nanog@Merit. Edu (E-mail) >Subject: Re: Hosting Failover Question > > > >What do you mean by "reasonable"? Do you mean what you can expect right >now at a hoster, or what you should aim for when designing a system? > >At 6/6/01, James DeMong wrote: > > > >I am looking for a Rule of Thumb on failover for hosting, mostly > >tcp(webserver), some udp (audio/video streaming) stuff. > >My thought is that 5 seconds to failover when a network > >element(switch/router/load balancer/FW) fails is reasonable. > > > >How many seconds is reasonable for fail over in such a situation? > > > >Thanks in advance. > >__ > >James DeMong > >Network Design Specialist > >TELUS Advanced Communications > >Phone: (403) 503-3718 > >Email: James.DeMong(a)telus.com > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Paul Froutan Email: pfroutan(a)rackspace.com >Rackspace Managed Hosting <http://www.rackspace.com>

1 0

RE: C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering
by Smith, Marcellus 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

In my opinion, the individual "peering coordinator" will have less and less control over Peering over time. So it doesn't matter how constant or flexible their views are. The outgoing costs considerations will begin to dictate more than any other factor what the "company's" views are on Peering. For example, working at a facilities based company would enable you to enjoy certain luxuries that a non-facilities based company would not. Some ISP's look at Peering and the costs associated with it (hardware and circuits) as a cost of doing business, but the beancounters want to see direct revenue tied to everything, of course. When the "peering coordinator" can't show direct revenue from Peering, whatever he or she thinks goes out the window, making their opinions or views, irrelevant to their company. And this is the mistake that companies will make. They don't realize the 3D effect of the economics, as any good "peering coordinator" will and they will make "Peering" decisions only based on the outgoing costs. ------------------------ Marcellus Smith Director - Internetworking Strategies Office 703-287-4224 Cell 703-395-4275 marcellus(a)aleron.com www.aleron.com -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:14 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering On Wed, 06 June 2001, shane wrote: > Looks like the peering is back up as of 21:28:00 EDT. Wow, less than a week. Not too bad as peering disputes go. If you'd like to re-read older PSI peering dispute A person from ANS: http://www.interesting-people.org/archive/0435.html A person from PSI: http://www.interesting-people.org/archive/0436.html I would be interested in hearing what folks who once worked as the "peering coordinator" for a large ISP, and later worked as a smaller ISP trying to negotiate from different sides of the table think. I believe every major ISP has turned over their peering staff at least once, and some multiple times. Do the views hold constant no matter where they are, or are they flexible depending whether they are currently working at the big ISP or at the startup ISP?

1 0

3GB month limit to telstra users
by k claffy 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

(did this hit nanog already, sorry if so) "The former national Telecommunications company in Australia, Telstra, announced changes to their flat-rate cable and ADSL Freedom plan iyesterday. The following email was sent to all users on the cable and ADSL residential plans -- restricting data download to three gigabytes per month with additional downloading attracting a hefty 35-cent fee per megabyte ($AU). Usage after that 3 gigabyte allowance is limited to the internal network if the customer does not choose to pay the fees for excess traffic." http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/06/136240&mode=thread

1 0

RE: HTML-format postings
by Richard Welty 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

At 11:22 AM 6/6/2001 -0700, Dee McKinney wrote: >I have to use Outlook at the office but it's set to plain text. >I'd like to see a rule like that :-) the simplest possible solution is to get a copy of demime and install it on the merit.edu server. i did it for all my majordomo lists, and it works wonderfully. all the mime and all the attachments just go "poof" and disappear. so merit mailing list manager folks, how about it? http://scifi.squawk.com/demime.html richard -- Richard Welty rwelty(a)averillpark.net Averill Park Networking -- Network Engineering, Software Development http://www.averillpark.net/ 518-573-7592

1 0

RE: Hosting Failover Question
by James DeMong 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

I am interested what I should design to. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Froutan [mailto:pfroutan@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:23 PM To: Nanog@Merit. Edu (E-mail) Subject: Re: Hosting Failover Question What do you mean by "reasonable"? Do you mean what you can expect right now at a hoster, or what you should aim for when designing a system? At 6/6/01, James DeMong wrote: >I am looking for a Rule of Thumb on failover for hosting, mostly >tcp(webserver), some udp (audio/video streaming) stuff. >My thought is that 5 seconds to failover when a network >element(switch/router/load balancer/FW) fails is reasonable. > >How many seconds is reasonable for fail over in such a situation? > >Thanks in advance. >__ >James DeMong >Network Design Specialist >TELUS Advanced Communications >Phone: (403) 503-3718 >Email: James.DeMong(a)telus.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Froutan Email: pfroutan(a)rackspace.com Rackspace Managed Hosting <http://www.rackspace.com>

1 0

small adaptation of jsb's message on peering
by smd＠clock.org 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

this is approximately how it seems to work, generically speaking... peering vs transit: 1. networks sell both capacity and "reach" at various prices; "reach" can be descirbed in terms of where the purchasing party's networks are reannounced by the seller, and which of the routes the seller knows will be announced to the buyer. 2. (external) connections (to networks that are not controlled by the same entity) can be described as "revenue" vs. "non-revenue" 3. "revenue" connections earn income directly - the other party is a paying customer; "non-revenue" connections by contrast do not earn money directly (non-paying customer, or non-customer) 4. a "peer" is a non-revenue connection sold with "reach" limited to networks available through revenue connections only sales process: 1. you can always try to negotiate a huge discount on a revenue connection independent of service 2. sales teams have pricing criteria set by guidelines or reviewed by some type of revenue management officer/team peering policy: 1. you may be eligible for a 100% discount limited reach connection if you meet certain criteria and agree to a special contract 2. if you do not meet these criteria, the odds of a sales team giving you a 100% discount are approximately zero 3. however, you may qualify for a significant discount that is not 100%; contact our sales people for details (and please see "sales process" above) Sean.

1 0

New peering criteria
by Sean Donelan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

Is there any limit what a provider can write in a peering criteria? Imagine: AT&T, C&W and UUNET announce new peering criteria. They will only peer with companies without the letter "P" in their name. PSI, failing to meet the publicly announced peering criteria, must buy transit or face the termination with extreme prejudice of traffic exchange with other providers. The spokesperson for the Three said, "All PSI has to do is change its name, its not our fault, we have no choice. Its in the peering criteria." This seems to be very much a telco mentality. We wrote the tariff, but we have no choice but to kill you because its in the tariff. Yes, we could change the tariff in less than 24-hours, but that's not in the tariff. So you must die. Sorry, there is nothing we can do. Peering criteria seem to be nothing more than a fictional fig leaf. Peering is a straight business relationship. Which provider is hurt more by the termination of peering. If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll terminate the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll fight to keep it in place.

3 2

Why so little traffic from C&W
by Sean Donelan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

Why does C&W have so little traffic? Can't C&W generate more traffic to send out of their network? Or have most of the big traffic sources moved off of C&W to other places, such as Exodus? Several folks have sent me private mail all commenting that C&W's transit and peering traffic with them is down, although C&W claims overall their traffic volume is up. It takes two parties to maintain an exchange ratio. It appears C&W wasn't doing its part either. "Couser said each of C&W's peering partners must meet three requirements: they must have an OC-48 backbone, be able to maintain an exchange ratio of 2 to 1, and have nodes in nine regions. The exchange ratio with PSINet was 3 to 1, Couser said. "It's equitable as long as you're sending me the same amount," Couser said. "When you're sending someone more traffic than they're sending us, you're essentially giving them free access." PSI spent a lot of money over the last few years (perhaps more than C&W spent), which may also be why PSI is in financial trouble. In the cable TV industry, cable companies must pay for content (e.g. cable companies pay CNN for the privilege of transmitting CNN on their network). Since PSI has more content than C&W (as evidence by the imbalance), why shouldn't C&W have to compensate PSI for its content just like the cable companies?

1 0