- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

peers, peer-nots, judges/politicians, and you
by Paul A Vixie 04 May '97

04 May '97

Here's something with cobwebs on it that bears on the current UUNET discussion. To: xxx Subject: text i removed from my recent message to nanog -- xxx Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 21:17:03 -0700 From: Paul A Vixie <vixie(a)wisdom.home.vix.com> But what's interesting to me about this being your reason for not coming to CIX is that your policy is being shaped by other policies that you don't like. You have the option of configuring a CIX-connected router to avoid CIX for paths which have AS xxxx in them. Ultimately the battle lines will be drawn, and there will be three distinct camps of folks (see below). In the mean while, the fact that the lines aren't clear is letting a lot of folks play "chicken" with each other's customers, and that's too bad. When the battle lines form up, you'll see the peers, the peer-nots, and the lawyers/judges/politicians. My personal and oft-stated goal is to make the set of "peers" so large and so well interconnected that the "peer-nots" will get complaints from their own customers if they can't reach all the "peers". Choosing not to join CIX, or any interconnect you can afford to join, for the reason you gave, works against the full connectivity of the "peers" in the above black-and-white picture, and this in turn will make it easier for the "peer-nots" to divide you all and conquer you, one at a time, since at no time will they feel enough pressure from their own customer bases.

3 2

Re: UUNET and peering
by Hank Nussbacher 04 May '97

04 May '97

WCOM (stock ticker) which owns Uunet, has had its stock go up from 22 to 25 1/4 from Wed April 30 till the end of Friday May 2. Perhaps the market sees UUnet's move as a wise financial decision? Hank

3 2

NANOG mail loop
by Alex.Bligh 04 May '97

04 May '97

Delightful though this all is, do we have to read it twice? There appears to be a mail loop here... Alex Bligh Xara Networks Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [198.108.1.42]) by diamond.xara.net (8.7.4/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA09379 for <nanog(a)xara.net>; Sun, 4 May 1997 12:32:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA08319; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sun, 4 May 1997 07:19:35 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA08265 for nanog-outgoing; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tsb.inet-images.com (tsb.inet-images.com [204.91.224.2]) by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA08261 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from apu@localhost) by tsb.inet-images.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id HAA05476 for sp fld(a)erols.com; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:24:23 -0400 Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [198.108.1.42]) by tsb.inet-images.com (8.8.5/8.7. 3) with ESMTP id HAA05471 for <apu(a)spfld.com>; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:24:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA08138; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sun, 4 May 1997 06:59:32 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA08122 for nanog-outgoing; Sun, 4 May 1997 06:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from songbird.com (kent(a)songbird.com [206.14.4.2]) by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA08118 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Sun, 4 May 1997 06:59:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kent@localhost) by songbird.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id CAA07110; Sun, 4 May 1997 02:58:43 -0700 X-Envelope: <apu(a)spfld.com> Message-ID: <19970504025843.42873(a)bywater.songbird.com> Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 02:58:43 -0700 From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: UUNET and peering References: <2.2.16.19970504072926.706f4576(a)rex.ibm.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 0.66 X-Disclaimer: Things are not as they seem X-PGP-Key: http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html X-Loop: apu(a)inet-images.com Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 676

1 0

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Peter Lothberg 04 May '97

04 May '97

> UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had UUNET > peering? Look up ''peer'' in a dictionary, in this context it means something like ''networks of equal size''. The internet is moving towards a scenario with a handfull global players that will be ''peers'' everyone else will become a customer. --Peter

6 5

eDNS - Temporary Freeze
by Jim Fleming 04 May '97

04 May '97

Because of the enormous amount of interest in eDNS and the rapid growth of Registration Authorities (RAs) and TLD Registries under the eDNS plan, a temporary Freeze has been placed on the eDNS Root Zone [1]. This Freeze should allow all of the major Root Name Server Confederations to come to a round table consensus with "dot" clearly in the center of the table, out of reach of everyone's arms, military or otherwise. The major Root Name Server Confederations at this point in time are: AlterNIC - ?? Servers eDNS - 5 Servers (FROZEN) InterNIC - 9 Legacy Servers name.space - 12 Servers NSI/ISI - 4 Servers Everyone, especially ISPs and NANOG members, should encourage the owner/operators of the Root Name Servers in the above Confederations to represent them at these historic round table discussions which will be largely held in the open environment of the Internet and in traditional Internet forums. Think global and act local... =============== The consensus needed covers... 1. What are the confederations common guidelines on name syntax ? - One letter TLDs ? - Two letter TLDs ? - Dashes ? - Plurals ? 2. How will the confederations be "synced" ? (i.e. How will they exchange info on which TLDs they support ?) 3. Once a Confederation agrees to recogize a TLD will all Confederations agree to use the same TLD Name Server referrral NS Resource Records ? =============== I think that we should also add that there are CURRENTLY five parties at the Confederation Round Table. (AlterNIC, eDNS, InterNIC, name.space, NSI/ISI) There are clearly more Confederations coming. Consensus on the above basic issues is needed before the Root Name Server Confederation round table grows larger. [1] =========================================== ---------- From: edns-root@MCS.Net[SMTP:edns-root@MCS.Net] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 1997 11:14 AM To: edns-operators(a)MCS.Net Cc: edns-discuss(a)MCS.Net; newdom(a)ar.com Subject: Violations of Charter Over the last couple of weeks, eDNS has been grappling with apparent unfair practices with regards to TLD allocation and Registration Authority (RA) supervision. In an attempt to fairly address these issues, a Root Server Council (RSC) was formed for the sole purpose of interpreting the existing eDNS Charter. On Wednesday, the RSC issued a list of RAs and TLDs that appeared to be deficient in adhering to the letter and spirit of the Charter. Since that time, one RA has challanged the basis for this summary. Since these are difficult decisions and it is often hard to decide where to draw the line, the RSC felt that it would be better to decide these issues using a substantial public comment process from all Internet stakeholders, not just the RSC or other parties involved in eDNS. For these reasons, the RSC today has decided the following: - As of today, the RSC will place a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any new TLDs, RAs, or Registries. The only activity that will be approved are owner submitted Deletes, and Modifies required for system integretity. - The difficult questions facing the RSC will be brought before the entire Internet community for public review. Upon consensus, the questionable RAs and TLDs will either be deleted, modified, or accepted. - This process is to begin with Indusrty stakeholders at the upcoming Interop Conference in Las Vegas. The RSC also plans to request a meeting with the U.S. Government on this topic, as well as seek input from Internet and International organizations and Governments. Additional comments will be released before the upcoming Interop BOF (Birds of a Feather) Meeting schedule for Tuesday, May 6th at 8:00 p.m. The entire Internet community is invited to participate in this public comment process to help shape the future direction of eDNS. RSC. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com ===============================================

3 3

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements
by Sean Donelan 04 May '97

04 May '97

>One first thinks that it is only the little guys get burned with their >customers when the little guy is seperated from a backbone operation such >as UUNet's. But the only thing is that out of the vast numbers of UUNet >customers or indirect UUNet subscribers, there will be many who notice that >a connection to the little guy is no longer possible -- and they will complain >up the chain to UUNet. Just responding to those complaints is a massive >amount of work and expense. Its only a massive amount of work and expense if you care about customer service. Remember what happened when users on PacBell Internet couldn't reach the US Securities and Exchange Commission one morning. The provider that cared about its customers rectified the problem, at their own expense. The provider that caused the problem, didn't suffer any reprecussions. In fact, they said "see it was the other guy's fault all along." Stuff won't break all at once, it will just become more brittle. It will break weeks and months later, long after everyone has forgotten that it could have stayed working. I saw our first MCI hiccup a couple of weeks after they disconnected from the CIX. A different provider turned down a BGP session at MAE-East, and has been straightening things out for a week. It is very difficult for a customer to isolate a problem with the Internet, even when all the providers are cooperating. Imagine how tough its going to be for customers to figure things out with this going on. Providers that care about customer service are at a distinct disadvantage playing chicken. Providers that say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" can get away with it. I don't think anyone is looking for a "free" ride. It would be great if other providers compensated DRA for using DRA Net to carry their "free" traffic. But so far, none have made me an offer. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

RE: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Dave Van Allen 04 May '97

04 May '97

Gordon, Lack of a global undisciplined peering and charging more for connections to "customer - ISP's" do not go hand-in-hand. Net Glossary (for effect): Bi-lateral: You both offer each other equality in important areas. Non-Binding: I woke up on the wrong side of the bed - See Ya! MAE/NAP: A place to trade better connectivity under certain conditions of equality - OR a place to run default free until I get caught. I believe that this is purely a model of economics, progressiveness and network protection. UUNet, MCI, and Sprint for the most part have always been the networks that were desirable to peer with at meet points. In the beginning, it was relatively easy to make that happen if you as a smaller network had the money to get to an appropriate NAP/MAE. You had to have a technical competency level, sales pitch and possible friend-in-the-biz to help you along, and if you had those things, you effectively had the secret handshake and you were in. Just because something like this worked in the past, doesn't mean that it will work in the future, and today is the future. The big Net's have been engineering private exchange points to move away from the mess at the MAE's for a while now. This should have been "Ah-Ha #1". Next, the newest NAPS don't have the level of Big Net participation as perhaps everyone thought they would, this should have been "Ah-Ha #2". And finally, with all of the rumor (and resulting fact) that "Net A, B and C will only peer with you if you are at X, Y and Z at OC-48 <g>" should have been "Ah-Ha #3" It's my opinion that it should come as no surprise that a change is being made in the way the Net carries data. This is like any business, you must be good at prediction and you must be good at picking your suppliers. If you did not predict this (and don't have a fall-back plan), then you probably won't be able to predict the next major obvious event. If you think that your suppliers will provide you with favorable terms - make sure you have a plan when and if those terms change. Best regards, David Van Allen - You Tools Corporation / FASTNET(tm) dave(a)fast.net (610) 289-1100 http://www.fast.net FASTNET - PA/NJ/DE Internet Solutions >-----Original Message----- >From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook@netaxs.com] >Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 11:51 PM >To: Dave Van Allen >Cc: 'Stephen Balbach'; 'nanog(a)merit.edu'; 'inet-access(a)earth.com'; >'dave(a)oldcolo.com' >Subject: RE: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging >under non-disclosure? > >when they clean out all the competing backbones what is to prevent thenm >from doubling and then tripling your charges Dave? > >************************************************************************ >The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than >431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material >(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ >Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com On line speech of critics under >attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml >************************************************************************ > > >On Fri, 2 May 1997, Dave Van Allen wrote: > >> Well said! >> >> Gee, you mean that this *is* really a business?? >> >> Best regards, >> >> David Van Allen - You Tools Corporation / FASTNET(tm) >> dave(a)fast.net (610) 289-1100 http://www.fast.net >> FASTNET - PA/NJ/DE Internet Solutions >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Stephen Balbach [SMTP:stephen@clark.net] >> >Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 6:43 AM >> >To: Gordon Cook >> >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu; inet-access(a)earth.com; dave(a)oldcolo.com >> >Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with >>charging >> >under non-disclosure? >> > >> > >> >> First it was AGIS (but who cares about AGIS?). Now UUNET. Tomorrow who? >> >> MCI? As UUNET and others of the big five move to consolidate their >> >> markets.......... let UUNET put the smaller national backbones against >>the >> >> wall and whom do the rest of ISP's have to rely on? Those ISPs who did >> >> not get hit in UUNET's first round of cuts. Will you get it in the neck >>in >> >> the second or the third round? >> > >> >The only thing UUNET is cutting is Internet trees, and there are some who >> >are protesting by hugging them. Clear out the chaff for next seasons >> >crops. >> > >> >Buying connectivity from an ISP who peers with UUNET, or buying direct >> >from UUNET, is a lot cheaper then building a national DS-3/OC-3 backbone >> >and trying to be default free - this is not about UUNET cuting throats, >> >it's about large and small ISP's examining thier business model. >> > >> > >> >.stb >> > >> >

3 2

RE: UUNET Pulling Peering - Core Issues
by Charles R. Hoynowski 03 May '97

03 May '97

Uh, excuse me? I have no right to count on complete Internet connectivity from my ISP? This has some far reaching implications. What consideration is being given to arguably the most impacted parties in this new peering (or not peering) policy? The business customers, selling services via the Internet. Consider, company "A" on Alternet is contracted to provide data on demand to support services running on company "B", who is on another ISP. Without warning or notice to its customers (which may be the most disturbing point) UUNET makes a policy decision to stop peering with the other ISP. Company "B" goes out of business. "B" sues "A" for breach of contract, "A" sues UUNET, etc. Should ISPs be allowed to set peering policy for Internet? Should they have the right to define what the Internet is? Which points out how the Internet really has become a common carrier/utility company concern. PacBell can't suddenly change your phone service because they decide to. There's public review and approval steps they have to follow first. And there's good reason for that. The public relies on the phone system for business transaction and private use. The system must be be maintained in a consistent manner to allow that to occur. I don't need to point out the similar common carrier roles ISPs and the Internet as a whole have assumed. The issue has brought to light the fact than players in the ISP game want to assume the role, and make profits based on, of providing common utility services, without assuming the responsibility and accountability structures other public service providers must assume. I believe this is the core issue at hand regarding UUNET's peering policy changes and needs to be address at that level. _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ Charles R. Hoynowski, Site Admin _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Etak, Inc., 1430 O'Brien Drive, _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ Menlo Park, CA 94025 _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Voice:415-617-4458 Fax:617-0161 _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Email: charles(a)etak.com

1 0

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements
by Alex Rubenstein 03 May '97

03 May '97

What? Are you kidding? Where does it say anywhere that UUNet is required to connect/peer with anyone? Just because you are at a MAE doesn't give you the rught to peer. I think anyone who sues over the pulling of peering is simply crying like a little girl. The only mistake I think UU Net (or any for that matter) every made was to peer with smaller networks in the first place. >> >> Currently we peer with UUNet across Mae-West and have for over >> two years. We have been trying to extend this peering to the many >> other NAP's where we have DS3 connectivity for over 10 months now, >> as sound network design would indicate, but these efforts have been >> repeatedly rejected by UUNet. Recently, we also recieved the "from >> letter" telling us our peering would be shut off in June. We have >> so far declined to sign the NDA papers with UUNet regarding this. >> >> We are seeking a solution to the the problem without entering into >> a dead-end NDA that prevents us from actually doing so. I encourage >> others who are in the same boat to contact us to exchange thoughts >> on the matter. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Adam Waters > >I suggest considering a class legal action and/or a direct call to the FTC >asking for an investigation if you believe this behavior is anti-competitive. > >-- >-- >Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity >http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service > | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ >Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! >Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal >

2 1

eDNS - Temporary Freeze
by Jim Fleming 03 May '97

03 May '97

Because of the enormous amount of interest in eDNS and the rapid growth of Registration Authorities (RAs) and TLD Registries under the eDNS plan, a temporary Freeze has been placed on the eDNS Root Zone [1]. This Freeze should allow all of the major Root Name Server Confederations to come to a round table consensus with "dot" clearly in the center of the table, out of reach of everyone's arms, military or otherwise. The major Root Name Server Confederations at this point in time are: AlterNIC - ?? Servers eDNS - 5 Servers (FROZEN) InterNIC - 9 Legacy Servers name.space - 12 Servers NSI/ISI - 4 Servers Everyone, especially ISPs and NANOG members, should encourage the owner/operators of the Root Name Servers in the above Confederations to represent them at these historic round table discussions which will be largely held in the open environment of the Internet and in traditional Internet forums. Think global and act local... =============== The consensus needed covers... 1. What are the confederations common guidelines on name syntax ? - One letter TLDs ? - Two letter TLDs ? - Dashes ? - Plurals ? 2. How will the confederations be "synced" ? (i.e. How will they exchange info on which TLDs they support ?) 3. Once a Confederation agrees to recogize a TLD will all Confederations agree to use the same TLD Name Server referrral NS Resource Records ? =============== I think that we should also add that there are CURRENTLY five parties at the Confederation Round Table. (AlterNIC, eDNS, InterNIC, name.space, NSI/ISI) There are clearly more Confederations coming. Consensus on the above basic issues is needed before the Root Name Server Confederation round table grows larger. [1] =========================================== ---------- From: edns-root@MCS.Net[SMTP:edns-root@MCS.Net] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 1997 11:14 AM To: edns-operators(a)MCS.Net Cc: edns-discuss(a)MCS.Net; newdom(a)ar.com Subject: Violations of Charter Over the last couple of weeks, eDNS has been grappling with apparent unfair practices with regards to TLD allocation and Registration Authority (RA) supervision. In an attempt to fairly address these issues, a Root Server Council (RSC) was formed for the sole purpose of interpreting the existing eDNS Charter. On Wednesday, the RSC issued a list of RAs and TLDs that appeared to be deficient in adhering to the letter and spirit of the Charter. Since that time, one RA has challanged the basis for this summary. Since these are difficult decisions and it is often hard to decide where to draw the line, the RSC felt that it would be better to decide these issues using a substantial public comment process from all Internet stakeholders, not just the RSC or other parties involved in eDNS. For these reasons, the RSC today has decided the following: - As of today, the RSC will place a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any new TLDs, RAs, or Registries. The only activity that will be approved are owner submitted Deletes, and Modifies required for system integretity. - The difficult questions facing the RSC will be brought before the entire Internet community for public review. Upon consensus, the questionable RAs and TLDs will either be deleted, modified, or accepted. - This process is to begin with Indusrty stakeholders at the upcoming Interop Conference in Las Vegas. The RSC also plans to request a meeting with the U.S. Government on this topic, as well as seek input from Internet and International organizations and Governments. Additional comments will be released before the upcoming Interop BOF (Birds of a Feather) Meeting schedule for Tuesday, May 6th at 8:00 p.m. The entire Internet community is invited to participate in this public comment process to help shape the future direction of eDNS. RSC. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com ===============================================

1 0