- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: B
by Sean Butler 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

I wrote: >> My argument was that in addition to the peering settlement charges, >> each network would charge their customers for the traffic they generate. mleber(a)he.net wrote >Since you are proposing a receiver pays system there is less motivation >for networks to charge the sender. In fact, they would probably pay the >sender. My thought was that you charge the sender and receiver. They are both using resources on their origination networks.... This helps prevent people from gernerating legitmate, non-fraudulent traffic -- i.e. extra traffic that is not necessary. Sean ___________________________________ Sean Butler, CCIE #3897 IBM Global Services -- OpenNet Support Phone: 8-631-9809, 813-523-7353 Fax: 8-427-5475 813-878-5475 Internet email: sebutler(a)us.ibm.com

1 0

Call Management/Help Desk Software for NOCs
by Martin, Christian 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

I am interested in implementing a new Call Management/Trouble Ticketing system for use in a mid-sized NOC. Can anyone offer any tips on possible products/vendors who have a nice, easy to use, integrated package to facilitate fast response times to calls and fast resolution to problems. Knowledge trees and AI would be helpful, but not necessary. Thanks! Chris

1 0

Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
by John Curran 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

At 01:49 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote: >Are you saying that someone should be forced to pay for the privilege of >offering something for free to your customers? Things that your customers, >who I number among are requesting? There's no way to know what is being offered "for free", "in exchange for ads", "due to a credit card transaction", etc. It's all just traffic. Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs and the sending customer bears some of the costs. In the case of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up bearing all of the costs. /John

3 4

Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

exodus.net preference = 5, mail exchanger = postal.exodus.net > John Curran wrote: > > > > Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs > > and the sending customer bears some of the costs. In the case > > of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting > > traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up > > bearing all of the costs. > > I guess 'all the cost' means most of the cost, and 'no offsetting traffic' > means 'not much offsetting traffic'. > > However, is the real problem here the traffic assymetry, or the fact that > all of the traffic is coming from one geographic location? > > If it is the former, then there isn't much of a solution except to merge > with a network that sucks a huge amount of traffic. However, if it is the > latter, then wouldn't content distribution fix it? I know many web farms > offer distributed servers to their customers as a type of premium service. > However, since in this case it benefits all parties involved, it seems to me > that it might make sense to offer this service to huge web sites at little > or no additional cost. > Actually, if the content provider simply honors MEDs, that should cover most of the issue. Then, the long haul is done across the content providers' backbone anyway. Owen

2 1

Re: BBN/GTEI
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Robert Bowman wrote: > > > Isn't being a pioneer doing best-exit to eliminate the cost imbalances? > > I thought that was the whole idea behind what BBN/Exodus were doing. > > I don't know your network and BBN's well enough to do anything but guess > here, but wouldn't there still be asymmetry in the number of bits of > traffic exchanged, even with best exit? > > I'm not sure if the things I am discussing are directly applicable to your > situation with BBN but if you think some of this stuff could work and are > willing to try it, why not ask BBN if they would consider some sort of > interim agreement while you work out the details. I guess I'm the kind of > guy who always looks for a creative, off-the-wall, "think different" kind > of solution to a problem in negotiations. The worst the other folks can > say is no. But sometimes they say hmmm... Sure, but only the assymetry that results from BBN customers ASKING for more than they OFFER. Owen

4 3

Re: BBN/GTEI
by mark＠exodus.net 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

How about if everyone just joins the BPP? Mark -----Original Message----- From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 4:49 PM Subject: Re: BBN/GTEI |On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Dave Rand wrote: | |> Traffic is an obvious one. Is that measured in packets per second, or bits |> per second? | |Bits, not packets. And I think that aggregate octets per hour or per day |is a more reasonable way to measure it. | |> Since, in the USA (where the vast majority of traffic |> originates) circuits are provisioned as full duplex, _does it matter_ which |> direction the bits are flowing in? | |Yes. In and out should be measured separately. | |> Assuming it does matter, in which direction does the value flow? | |Here's the complex part. The value is not expressed in bits and it depends |on the destination within the peer's network. I am assuming that we can |map the IPv4 address space by city and that we can set some value to each |intercity link. This means that a stream of bits entering a peers network |in San Jose with a final destination in San Jose would be free. But if the |stream of bits was destined for Santa Cruz there would be a small cost. |And if it was destined for Sacramento there would be a somewhat larger |cost because Sacramento is further. | |> Another one is route-miles. A provider with 1,000 route-miles of circuits |> 'obviously' has less value than a provider with 10,000 route-miles of |> circuits. How does speed of those circuits factor in? Perhaps the metric |> should be DS0-route-miles (64K-circuits per mile). Of course, one WDM dark |> fiber run of 250 miles would nuke this metric. | |Route-miles between cities might be the metric for determining the cost |multiplier. Of course, this would assume some standard city-to-city |mileage and a standard boundary, rather like a LATA boundary, that would |make Santa Clara considered to be equivalent to a San Jose destination |since it is only a couple of miles from San Jose. | |> How about dollar value of the network, in total bills paid to the telcos? |> Does this mean that networks that are owned by telcos have an almost-zero |> cost, or an "full retail price" accounting cost? | |I think that we need some standard way to calculate such costs. Since we |are discussing how to account for regional transit I think that one way |would be for the peer who would receive the payment to publish to a |pricelist to their peers for city-to-city transit and use this pricelist. |The arrangement would give the peers the option to buy circuits from the |other peer at that rate. We would use some formula based upon how much |traffic a reasonably standard intercity circuit could carry to determine |the rate per bit over that link. | |> Are networks that |> have reciprical agreements with telcos unduely penalized, or do they |> benefit? | |I would expect that they would neither benefit or be penalized. | |> Another good metric might be number of customers. | |There is too much variation between customers for this to work. | |> How about number of network advertisments, or routes? | |Same thing, too much variation, i.e. big aggregates and little ones. | |> We haven't even got to the hard points, which is *how much* each of |> these metrics are 'worth'. | |Agreed. This is likely going to require an industry council to come up |with the metrics and algorithms and specific numbers. Does this sound |suspiciously like regulated peering? Yes. It is regulated peering but my |intention is for the providers to work out the regulations within the |industry and only have government involvement on a review basis. For |instance such a council would need to satisfy the government that it was |not acting in an antitrust fashion and they would likely review this on a |regular basis. | |> We also haven't begun to address sites like gatekeeper.dec.com, |> ftp.cdrom.com, and the like. Nor networks with plently of suck bandwidth |> (but not much content) such as MSN and AOL. | |I think that this suggestion addresses all sorts of asymmetry because I |believe that the bottom line is that it costs more to transfer a given |number of bits over a larger distance than a smaller one and that this |cost can be quantified. | |> It's harder than it looks on the surface, folks. Clues appreciated. | |I agree with this. However when I look ahead to a world in which the IP |network is the only data communications infrastructure carrying voice, |video, web, email, etc., then I think that the hard work must be done to |create a scalable peering system. If we succeed at this then we will never |have to go through the pain that the telephone network experienced with |the forced AT&T government regulated monopoly followed by its forced |dissolution still under government regulation. It is my opinion that the |only way out from the specter of increased government regulation of the |Internet is to pre-empt government action by working out a system that |would be considered fair under existing antitrust laws. If we can go a |significant way down the path to such a system, even if we have not yet |implemented it, then I believe we will be able to secure support from the |government for a self-regulated industry peering council. | |But that's just my opinion. I don't have all the answers. | |-- |Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting |Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com |Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com | |

1 0

RE: GTE BBN - Rand originated BUSINESS MODEL discussion (fwd)
by Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Mike Leber wrote: > It sounds like you are proposing settlements based on subtracting received > from transmitted (or dialup provider pays, web hosting company earns). // snipped heavily... Hang on, the main revenue stream for a dialup isp is always user's subscriptions and fees. A good web site makes money from plain old adverts. What are we selling here? A network access product? Or bytes of useful stuff? Network access implies we're selling the use of the pipes, and big content providers pay big money to get their content into that network, the same way you pay for a pipe running off the best connected network, and users pay dailup subscriptions to have their 33 to 56 kbps. Bytes? We're buying the stuff IN the pipes, the network no longer matters, it's just a way of getting bytes here and there, run it only for the sake of getting bytes pushed. Now, do you pay for bytes to be sent, or do you pay for bytes to be received? Well, it's mostly consumer based, so the receiver pays. Imagine if the US postal service are just like a byte payer internet. You walk down to the post office and mail your letter, it gets handled by many people (routers) and sorting systems (more routers) and crosses through quite a few different companies, (as it's the internet, no one entity owns all of the net,) and these companies all take a fee for their service, so, you pay 40c for the stamp and that 40c is whittled down to nothing by the time the final destination is reached. Now, that may work well, but the model ignores Quality of Service, and the capacity to carry lots of mail in special heavy use periods. The profitability of the service is suspect, because a competitor may come out with a 35c service and lay your service (network) idle and unprofitable. Service between particular points may be suspect, however these flows of mail are moved to the bigger mail handlers, making the marketplace heavily stratified, with anti-competitive practices of the big mail handlers forcing the little guys to use them as go-betweens. So, in total ignorance of mail flows (network topology) the market suffers bloated pricing due to stratification of the operators, no guarantee of mail arriving on time (there's no bandwidth guarantee) and of course, political fighting between mail handlers over who should be a customer paying for delivery and who should be taking the biggest cut of the 40c or 35c. Look at the carrier/courier market and you have this right now. People are making money, some are going broke, and common carriers are making life difficult for smaller operations and regional operators. The analogy falls apart when you realise that the US postal service and DHL et al do not really care what they cart, they'll deliver empty boxes if you pay them, and so, the whole point is that no one really knows how much real "bandwidth" is there out, whether or not you get to use it, and of course, no one really cares what you're shipping... TERRY

1 0

Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) (fwd)
by Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

> Already being looked into and implemented. > Adrian, finding it mildly entertaining that AU is screaming for a more US-like > internet setup, and how the US seem to be after what AU have already been and > done. The #2 problem is the data pipe price we pay here in the land of .AU The #1 problem is the telco's are fixated on selling what's in the pipes and not the "promise to fill them up on demand." What's a typical same exch T1? US$150 per month? In .AU, same exch E1 is AUD1290 per month, or US$725/month. That's a factor 4.8, and data "consumption" gets worse. 19c/Meg for data, when the US transit is costing <1c/Meg. A factor of 20? Yeah... The funny thing is, Telstra (previously a monoploy carrier/clec,) sold IP transit on a fixed price pipe. Then discarded the model, for the pay per byte model. Many ISP's found their transit bills tripled overnight, and some "wholesalers" went through two or three price changes upwards of 200% per change. What did Telstra do then? They ran their network really lean, allowed oversubscription of 300% in some locations, but hey, you only pay for the bytes right? So, the internet product is running low on profit, pump up the network a little and watch everyone's bills go up... So, how many NSP/ISP's in North America would write MCI a blank check at the end of the month and not know if they're getting every piece of bandwidth they require? TERRY | Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser | 24x7 LINKS : AusBONE | | TereDonn Computer Engineering | ISDN/DDS/PAPL/HDSL/UWAVE | | PO BOX 1054, Spring Hill, QLD 4004 | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 | | terry(a)tdce.com.au | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 | | http://www.tdce.com.au | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 | There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. -- Mark Twain

1 0

Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

> At 12:12 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >... > >To some extent that's true. However, as a counter-point, consider such > >sites as sunsite, wustl, smc.vnet.net, etc. I doubt those sites would > >continue to exist in a solely bandwidth sensitive pay-as-you-go world. > >I think they count on flat rate connectivity to be able to continue > >to exist. I don't think the elimination of those sites (and many others > >like them) would benefit the net. Do you? > > I'm not certain that they represent a true public service, as opposed > to simply interesting content. Interesting content can probably pay its > own way, even at retail prices. For example, the incremental cost to > send 10MB of data is only about 50 cents using normal retail rates [1]. > Are you saying that whatever you're downloading isn't worth paying that? > (or watching the appropriate number of web ads, as I currently do to > download palm pilot apps, pc freeware, and today's weather gif?) > > /John > > [1] Retail T1 transit from major backbone, fully utilized, $2400 monthly, > presuming cost recovery over 4 peak hours of 20 business days = $30 > per peak hour; each hour good for about 600 MB -> 5 cents / MB ) > Although I wouldn't mind paying for it, I think that the sites that are doing much of that wouldn't find it worth the effort to collect the money from all the users that are downloading. At that point, they'd simply fold up shop and go away. That's my concern. Owen

1 0

Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
by John Curran 25 Aug '98

25 Aug '98

At 10:05 PM 08/24/1998 -0500, Tracy J. Snell wrote: >Everytime we have been SMURFed BBN/GTEI has been unwilling to do anything >to help us. Either filters or aiding in hunting down the SMURFer. My >experience is BBN doesn't help it's customers trace down SMURFers. Strange... I see tickets opened and worked on for these events; it's certainly the case that we work them when notified. If you forward me email from the last time this happened, I can hunt down the confusion. /John

2 1