- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Coincidence...
by Sean Donelan 07 May '97

07 May '97

>Boasting is fine until economic realities start to affect your >bottom line. I always held to the opinion that stratification of >Internet is inevitable. I agree one way to improve the bottom line is one-way settlements. But, if you want to charge to use your facilities, don't be surprised to see a toll booth when you try to use my facilities. On the other hand, if you want free access to my network, I expect a reciprocal agreement for access to your network. I'd rather avoid Mr. Doran's vision of which provider can out last their screaming customers longer. At least when ANS tried this last time, they offered to compensate some of the mid-level networks for some of the investment made in local and regional networks. >Neither it is a bad phenomenon per se -- it reflect shifing of Internet >being add-on service to being a core business of facilities based >telecom companies. The ultimate win will be a network which is a lot >more useful, with solid and sustainable business model. The Internet seems to have been incredibly successful by not following the traditional telco way of doing business. I don't know why the facilities based telecom companies model would produce a more useful, solid or sustainable business model just because it is being thought up by a manager at a facilities based telecom company. How is that marketing plan for ISDN coming along? Billion dollar companies can have bad ideas too. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Re: Coincidence...
by Vadim Antonov 07 May '97

07 May '97

Bill Manning wrote: >If they do, and no alternatives, then a terabit router is worthless. >I can't get the infrastructure to support it. If the PSTN is the >only game in town, then its ATM or nothing.. and ATM won't cut it >at those rates. I'd say telcos have some intelligent people working for them. And then, there are new players in the long-distance fiber game: watch for those who acquire big ISPs, or people from big ISPs :) --vadim

1 0

Re: Coincidence...
by Vadim Antonov 07 May '97

07 May '97

Bill Manning <bmanning(a)ISI.EDU> wrote: >Of course there are those that simply see the PSTN as just one more way to >move IP packets about. Lets see; radio, wireless, sat-link, cable, lans, >PSTN, avian-carrier, seismic-wave... lots of ways to move IP packets about. Yep. So far the only realistic way to move massive amounts of long-distance traffic is fiber. >the PSTN is one, but not the only one. And its not clear there is enough >capacity in the PSTN to carry all the bits about. Its not clear to me that >ATM will continue to work at terabit rates.. It won't. So what. If you want to purchase a terabit router, write a conditional purchase order -- you'll get it pretty soon. I'm serious. >SAR may be a bit tough to do at OC768-ish rates. "Doctor, it hurts when i do that." "Don't do it, then". >And then there is all that PSTN infrastructure that will >have to be replaced... Yep. It's only money. They already have rights of way. >push all that back on the rate payers? you bet. There's a lot of money to be made off Internet (i do not mean browsers and search engines). I'd rather think that capital is quite interested in the opportunity. --vadim

2 1

Nynex
by Aleph One 07 May '97

07 May '97

I knew there was some truth to all this stories about NYNEX.... bash$ whois nynex.com [No name] (ID?) 800CRIMINAL-DOM The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. Aleph One / aleph1(a)dfw.net http://underground.org/ KeyID 1024/948FD6B5 Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01

2 1

Re: GTE to acquire BBN
by Chris Steinke 07 May '97

07 May '97

As a long time customer of GTE for both personal and business services I really feel sorry for BBN and it's customers. Hopefully BBN will not let GTE get too involved with BBN's operations. GTE has got to be the worst telco in the world. Their service is horrific, their billing is a mess, and I have serious doubts about the competence of their technicians. I can't tell you how many times they have screwed up a simple frame relay installation or even plain old telephone services! There completely clueless! -- Chris Steinke Systems Engineer Cinenet Communications ____/| cjs(a)cinenet.net \o.0 | Oop ACK Ptpthptpt =(_)= U

6 5

Re: GTE to acquire BBN
by Selina F. Priestley 07 May '97

07 May '97

> Charles Sprickman wrote: > > > You sir, have not dealt with NYNEX. They are not only stupid, but > > extremely rude. Where else do you have to beg for dialtone? How many MFS > > T1 lines can be *whoops* installed wrong the first three times? They are > > evil, evil, evil, and I will leave the ISP business if they ever buy a > > national ISP. Blech. > > you're being awfully mild about nynex. > > nynex is without question the worst local telco in the > known universe. > > words cannot begin to describe the awfulness of > that company. > > cheers, > richard But if you want to see a noble attempt, please see http://www.nynexsucks.com/ Selina

1 0

BGP communities and customers
by Jeremy Hinton 07 May '97

07 May '97

An interesting side issue to the UUNet peering discussions is the capability/willingness of providers to create complex BGP policies based on the wants or needs of their individual customers. What if a customer requested their routes not be transmitted beyond your network (save your customers), in essence a private peering of the sort this list is discussing. Or perhaps more complex cases, where they want it sent to some of your peers, but not others (for AUP or other reasons). How about on a route by route basis, if they want some routes to follow one policy and some another? With creative community use, id imagine most of these scenarios could likely be implemented with a minimum of difficulty. I'm just wondering if many providers are seeing/doing this already, as systems like this could seem to give the end customer quite a bit more control of not only how outcoming traffic flows, but incoming as well (quite possibly at the price of some redundency). Are many providers negotiable to creating and accepting communities from downstream customers? - jeremy // Jeremy Hinton Visionary Systems, Inc. // jgh(a)visi.net http://www.visi.net // Network Operations Newport News, VA // A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men

2 1

Multicast
by Aleph One 07 May '97

07 May '97

Morning all. I was wonderign if anyone could comment on how deployed is multicast routing in real-world networks. How many of you have enabled multicast routing in your core routers? Do you offer this as a service to your customers? If no, why not? Do you plan to? The problem with IP multicasting is that is not usefull unless everyone is usinging it. I'am wondering when we will start seeing it in use. New products are starting to support multicast (new CUSeeMe, etc) but the infrastructure doesnt seem to be there. Aleph One / aleph1(a)dfw.net http://underground.org/ KeyID 1024/948FD6B5 Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01

5 4

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Bill Unsworth 07 May '97

07 May '97

In the past the bandwidth of peering connections has been high - 10Mbs or 100Mbs - although of course the switching may have had problems at some NAPs. With transit you pay by bandwidth so all these interconnect bandwidth are likely to be minimised rather than "optimised". Bill U-NET Ltd "Easy Internet Access" mailto:bill@u-net.net http://www.u-net.net/ Tel 01925 484444 Fax 01925 484466

1 0

Coincidence...
by Robert E. Seastrom 07 May '97

07 May '97

When Sprint initially enacted peering requirements, I asked several UUnet employees whether they were planning to do the same. The answer was without exception that UUnet pursues peering with all technically qualified providers at all exchange points, because that results in the best connectivity for UUnet customers. At about that time, there was a UUnet ad in the print media that featured a never-completed freeway on-ramp to I-95 in Baltimore. As I was driving north to Boston last Friday, I noted wryly that said ramp was being dismantled. ---Rob

2 1