- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure?
by garyz＠savvis.com 02 May '97

02 May '97

Just a note about the cost of doing business in what I call this new internet. We are building both, the long hauls between cities and also purchasing the bandwidth from the 3 major player, MCI, SPRINT, and UUNET. We have 19 cities total, with DS3s from each of the 3 above in 7 of the 19 cities. All cities are tied together via long hauls. This was not the cheap way to do this, but it is the most effective. Major reason, when you peer, you can not manage the network connection. We get to manage our connections in the seven location with the major three. We also can get some nice routing done because we are buying access to their networks. I really think the best way to get this done is to buy transiting bandwidth from whom ever you want. I think the peering should be done in a managed way. The maes and naps are not really managed connections, they are best as best can to get through them. So if you every want and kind of QOS for your network, buy the bandwidth not a unmanaged/miss managed connection. To make the internet as stable as the voice systems then these interconnection (bandwidth) agreements must be put in place and managed with two adult parties, not several hundred meg a bit connections going into a switch trying to come out a DS3 straw. So buy the bandwidth and manage it. Gary Zimmerman V.P. of Network Engineering Savvis Communications Corp. email: garyz(a)savvis.com http://www.savvis.com Office: 314.719.2423 Address: 7777 Bonhomme Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63105 ---------- > From: Matthew E. Pearson <mpearson(a)games-online.com> > To: Stephen Balbach <stephen(a)clark.net>; Gordon Cook <cook(a)netaxs.com> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure? > Date: Saturday, May 03, 1997 5:28 AM > > At 06:43 AM 5/2/97 -0400, Stephen Balbach wrote: > > >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. > > Explain to me how it is cheaper to pay UUNET for a full DS3 from > Boston-Washington, Wasington to Chicago, Washington to San Jose, Chicago to > San Jose, Washington to NYC at $60,000 each not including telco or transit. > Than it is to pay a telco alone for just the lines? I'd love to see how the > numbers work out on that! > > If your plan is to sell connectivity nationwide or semi-nationwide it is > absurdly more expensive to use UUNET than to do it yourself. > > Yes, if you are a local ISP and never intend to sell anything outside of > your area, it -MIGHT- possibly be cheaper. However, at $60,000 per DS3 > circuit not including telco/transit as opposed to even a $25,000 WorldComm > circuit -END TO END- I still don't see how the math works, unless you are a > UUNET reseller which wouldn't explain why you are building a network yourself. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Matthew E. Pearson > Vice President of Development > Games-Online Inc. > http://www.games-online.com

1 0

Open peering vs. charging under non-disclosure? No contest.
by Curt Howland 02 May '97

02 May '97

> As > if they don't make enough money. Gee wouldn't it really suck for all of > UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had UUNET > peering? Gee they couldn't download any Microsoft products anymore! The RA is a fantastic system, in that it allows an ISP like ConXioN to have a completely open peering policy without worrying about hundreds of lines of config code. We'll peer with anyone we share a MAE or NAP with. Definately worth the "price of admission" to a MAE. [I don't mean to toot my own horn here, simply state facts.] > This is also practically extortion. "Yes, we are peers, we have already > decided that our customers and yours would benefit, but YOU and YOUR > customers should pay to access ours...." When discussing peering (not transit, not anything fancy, just peering) with one of the Big Guys in the past, their staff stated (paprphrased), "We've settled the issue of 'our customers' vs. 'your customers' and we're not going to discuss that. Period. And if you bring it up again we will not talk with you again. Period." They then went on to say we needed to pay them for peering, to "cover their costs". > Maybe everyone should pull out of > peering with UUNET and tell them they need to pay US to peer. Just my $0.02 Wonderful image, ne? :^> > I am all for a commercial Internet, but this takes it WAY to far for my > tastes. At least true telecom carriers are regulated in what they can > charge for interconnects by the FCC or another governmental body in their > own country. Sheesh.. Yikes! Be carefull what you wish for! The 'Net thrives because a customer doesn't (yet) have to worry who they connect through, their data will get through. Price has been a measure of how fast, not wether or not, data gets through. I'd suggest that folks who think charging for simple peering is a good idea beware the fact that if they do, I think they will hasten the day the FCC decides that connectivity and reachability are a "scarce resource" and regulatable. > Send all flames to: dev(a)null.com I wish we could send the FCC to /dev/nul.... > Matthew E. Pearson > Vice President of Development > Games-Online Inc. > http://www.games-online.com Curt- Howland(a)ConXioN.com 408.938.8585

1 0

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Mark E Larson 02 May '97

02 May '97

At 02:32 AM 5/2/97 -0400, you wrote: > > Oh hell. I was just explaining to my boss last week how none of these > NSPs trust each other and so that's why all these packets have to cross > the country twice to get 20 miles down the road etc etc and now if > UUNET is pulling peers then he's _really_ going to have my head. > > Several questions: > > 1 - What is the point of the NDA? Is the NDA precedented? > > 2 - Are they pulling CIX peering? (Can that rtr get any more overloaded? :) > Last I heard, when the CIX moves locations, AGIS, MCI, UUNET, and Sprint will all be leaving the CIX. > 3 - One of my upstream providers claims that Sprint pulled peering > abruptly on them this morning without any warning and is now charging > them $X (where X is a large number) to peer. Has this happened to anyone > else, is it a Sprint policy to always charge for new peers, etc? > > Thanks, > >-Tung-Hui Hu > hhui(a)arcfour.com > Well, this is the way its going to be. Can anyone really be that surprised? I've been watching this trend for over a year now. From a small network standpoint, it sux. I work for a small network now, and now I have to budget financing to talk to these other networks. But for the big boys, they are loosing money. They have to put up huge amounts of bandwidth at the exchanges, so people can transverse their network free of charge. In a business sense, where is the cost justification here? Well Gordo, I know you hate anything AGIS, but they saw this coming a mile away and acted on it. I guess we know now why the big boys never complained about the AGIS peering policy, because in the back of their minds, they thought it was a good idea. Markl Mark E Larson Senior Network Architect RUSTnet Inc. ----------------------------------------------- R U S T N E T I N C. A member of the Verio Group 1-800-691-5080 http://www.rust.net -----------------------------------------------

4 3

Re: new domain name space approved
by Curt Howland 02 May '97

02 May '97

So now, rather than having just .COM and .NET, an ISP will have to add .FIRM, .WEB, at least, to minimize peoples confusion. The reason so many people went to .COM was because that way no one had to REMEMBER the .COM part. It's not like www.Intel.SC.CA.US is ever going to be seen on a billboard, regardless of the price difference. Oh, the pains people go through to have short names. The need for a good index is going to be more now than ever, with having to search 12 possible names looking for "bizname.?" Gee, I just stepped on another good intention. Wonder where this road goes? Curt- > ---<reposted from cmp-techweb>--- > > May 01, 1997 > > Global Telecom Body OKs New Domain Names > (05/01/97; 5:00 p.m. EDT) > By Malcolm Maclachlan, TechWire > > GENEVA -- It's not just a ".com" world anymore. > > At the close of an International conference here Thursday, dozens of > organizations signed a memorandum of understanding that adds seven > new top-level generic Internet domains. > > The new domains -- .arts, .firm, .info, .nom, .rec, .store and .web -- join > the five current, top Internet domains: .com, .org, .net, .gov and .edu. The > last two names, .gov and .edu., are available only to government and > educational institutions. > > The announcement of the new domains came on the last day of the > International Telecommunications Union conference here. The ITU, based > here, is the telecommunications agency of the United Nations. > > Under the plan, 28 new registrars -- four in each of the world's seven > regions -- are given the right to distribute top-level addresses. Potential > registrars now have 100 days to apply for one of these spots. > > Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) has the exclusive right to distribute > top-level domain addresses through a contract with the National Science > Foundation. The NSF announced last week that it would not renew the > contract, which expires in 1998. > > The campaign for the new system was led by the Internet Society, a > nonprofit group dedicated to "maintaining the viability and global scaling of > the Internet." > > "Internet top-level domain names are a public resource," said Internet > Society President Don Heath at conference closing ceremonies. "They are > now recognized as a public trust. This marks just the beginning of a long > process in which governments will be more involved and will work with > the Internet community." > > The plan was also endorsed by Vinton Cerf, vice president of Internet > architecture at MCI. Cerf is the researcher generally credited as being > "the father of the Web." > > The memorandum was signed by 57 organizations, while another 23 have > stated their intention to sign. These include groups from 24 countries on > four continents. Almost all the signers are companies, such as MCI and > Digital Equipment, as well as non-profit advocacy groups, rather than > government agencies. > > "The intent was really to get the players in the industry to sign up," said > Internet Society Executive Director Martin Burack, speaking from the > group's Reston, Va., offices. "The governments need to be involved, but > we want it to be industry self-regulation." > > No More Monopoly > > In the meantime, Network Solutions appears to have finally lost out on the > lucrative monopoly it had controlled since 1993. It has made more than > $40 million registering addresses, and stood to make far more given the > continued Internet explosion. > > The company said it plans to maintain control over the right to distribute > .com addresses. It is unclear whether the company has the right to do this, > according to the NSF. > > The plan is also facing a legal challenge. Image Online Design, a web > design firm, filed suit in California court today. The company is seeking an > injunction against the plan on the grounds that groups involved have no > legal standing to carry out their plans. > > > > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-.._..-*~ > Rob M. VanHooren +1 519 679-1155 x34 > Network Engineering Services 171 Queens Avenue, Suite 320 > Linkdata Communications Inc. London, CANADA > Good things come to those who wait. Patience is a virtue. Yadda Yadda Yadda >

1 0

FW: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure?
by Tom Walton 02 May '97

02 May '97

As is also "usual in Boardwatch", we'll find it impossible to tell the part he dreamed from the part he hallucinated from the part where he didn't know what he was talking about. ================================================================= Tom Walton twalton(a)acsi.net VP, Engineering and Operations ACSINet American Communications Sytems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Jack Rickard [SMTP:jack.rickard@boardwatch.com] Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 1:14 AM To: Matthew E. Pearson Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure? I'm picturing a kind of "UUNET Disconnects from Internet" type of headline. This NDA thing has got me shut down. John Sidgemore won't talk to me. Ok, let's go public. What do you guys know? As usual in Boardwatch, we'll all pretend I had a dream last night and made it all up. I don't know what I'm talking about, yata yata yata.... e-mail privately. I hallucinated it as always... Jack Rickard Jack Rickard 8500 West Bowles Ave, Ste 210 Editor/Publisher Littleton, CO 80123 Boardwatch Magazine (303)973-6038 voice http://www.boardwatch.com (303)973-3731 fax

1 0

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Dave O'Shea 02 May '97

02 May '97

The truth is that this *is* good for UUnet. Not good for most ISP's, and likely not good for users: Customers of UUnet, including "well known services", will find their traffic reduced because of users who can no longer get to them, or give up because of bottlenecks. Do you provide customer support - downloadable patches, etc., across UUnet? Well, you'd better increase your phone support staff - lots of users are going to be unable to download those patches due to UUnet's overloaded "leaf" links. Just think: The money that UUnet's customers will save by having a few other providers subsidize the peering connections should almost cover the increased Fedex bill and the swollen 800 service tab! If I was the webmaster at a heavily trafficked site that depended on UUnet for connectivity, I'd be wondering how much business I'd be losing because of this policy. Place advertising on a site that's hosted somewhere on UUnet? It's a sure bet that users will be looking at more complex ways to avoid downloading it. Dave O'Shea, Speaking only for himself

1 0

DNRC Press Release (fwd)
by Janet Pippin 02 May '97

02 May '97

and now what?? /jdp ----- Forwarded message from Simon Higgs ----- Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:38:21 -0700 Reply-To: Simon Higgs <simon(a)HIGGS.COM> Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy(a)internic.net> Subject: DNRC Press Release | X-Sender: amr(a)fractal.chaos.com | Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 17:03:07 -0400 | To: dns-law(a)wia.org | From: KathrynKL(a)aol.com (by way of Tony Rutkowski <amr(a)chaos.com>) | Subject: DNRC Press Release | | Press Release | May 1, 1997 | | The Domain Name Rights Coalition | Opposes ITU Internet Action | | Today, rights on the Internet will be lost. The International | Telecommunication Union (ITU), a handful of private companies, and the | Internet Society (a small, membership organization in Reston, VA), will sign | a Memorandum of Understanding in Geneva that closes the doors to open and | public governance of domain names. The Domain Name Rights Coalition, a group | representing entrepreneurs, small businesses and individuals on the Internet, | opposes the action: | | "It is an international coup d'etat with the ITU seizing power over Internet | domain names," says Kathryn A. Kleiman, President of the Domain Name Rights | Coalition and attorney with Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. in Rosslyn, | VA. "The Memorandum of Understanding is an attempt to make an unauthorized | and unapproved power grab seem legitimate and official." | | The Memorandum of Understanding codifies the recommendations of a small, | private group. Calling themselves the "International Ad Hoc Committee," the | group represented small portions of the Internet community (mainly the ITU, | WIPO and large companies), met privately, circulated draft recommendations to | a small group, held private off-the-record meetings and created a final | report which differed significantly from original proposals. The DNRC | submits that the IAHC's grant of authority to ITU and the World Intellectual | Property Organization: | | - exceeds any authority from members of the Internet Society (organizer of | the IAHC) whose members never voted on the IAHC proposals or approved its | recommendations; | - ignores the great disagreement among the Internet community which | questioned and contested the IAHC recommendations; and | - bypasses the approval of ITU and WIPO member countries. | | To cope with growth, millions of new users, and new situations, the Internet | needs new rules, but the process for creating them must be open, public and | accountable. The DNRC supports: | - selection of decision makers who represent all major groups on the | Internet, including individuals, small businesses and entrepreneurs, | political and community organizations, and large companies; | - wide distribution of proposed rules; | - adequate time to respond to new rules and to views of other commenters; | - timely issuance of new rules with reports outlining the reasons for | decisions and the reliance on comments; and | - an appeals process when participants feel new rules violate existing | rights. | | Created by a few companies and organizations, today's actions of the ITU and | IAHC make entrepreneurs, Internet Service Providers, small businesses and | individuals and other domain name owners into second-class citizens of the | Internet. | | About the Domain Name Rights Coalition: | | The Domain Name Rights Coalition represents the interests and views of | entrepreneurs, small businesses and individuals on the Internet. The DNRC | works for equitable, consistent and responsible domain name policies from the | National Science Foundation, Network Solutions, Inc., and all entities who | control portions of the Internet. Its representatives served on the State | Department's Working Group on Domain Names. | | Information about the DNRC and DNRC comments to the IAHC draft proposals can | be found on its website at http://www.domain-name.org. | | Contact: | Kathryn A. Kleiman, President, Domain Name Rights Coalition | c/o Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, 1300 North 17th Street, Floor 11 | Rosslyn, VA 22209 | (703) 812-0400, Fax (703) 812-0486 | Email: kathryn(a)domain-name.org | --- end forwarded text --- ----- End of forwarded message from Simon Higgs ----- -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020 ----- End of forwarded message from Janet Pippin ----- -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020

4 4

Re: UUNET
by Joe McGuckin 02 May '97

02 May '97

Well, UUNET/Worldcom, Sprint and MCI are *really* telecom companies. That's where the bulk of their earnings come from. In the case of Worldcom, if the telecom side of the business was getting hurt because of something UUNET did, I think that might have a positive effect. If you don't agree with their actions, vote with your checkbook. You could: - Move out of MFS co-location space - Terminate MFS/Worldcom circuits & replace with another carrier. (This may not be an option for circuits in use - but you can change at the end of the contract). - In the San Francisco Bay Area, MFS's DNCF ('Virtual POP' or 'SuperPOP') DID telephone service is popular with ISP's. But a similar service is available from ICG (and they have PRI today! Not just channelized T1) - Getting MFS to build-in to a building is like pulling teeth. Brooks Fiber, on the other hand, is *very* aggressive and is willing to build-in for service orders that are quite small. - Inform your customers how UUNET's actions would affect their internet traffic. Several of our customers are large MFS clients. joe

1 0

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure?
by Jack Rickard 02 May '97

02 May '97

I'm picturing a kind of "UUNET Disconnects from Internet" type of headline. This NDA thing has got me shut down. John Sidgemore won't talk to me. Ok, let's go public. What do you guys know? As usual in Boardwatch, we'll all pretend I had a dream last night and made it all up. I don't know what I'm talking about, yata yata yata.... e-mail privately. I hallucinated it as always... Jack Rickard Jack Rickard 8500 West Bowles Ave, Ste 210 Editor/Publisher Littleton, CO 80123 Boardwatch Magazine (303)973-6038 voice http://www.boardwatch.com (303)973-3731 fax ---------- > From: Matthew E. Pearson <mpearson(a)games-online.com> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure? > Date: Friday, May 02, 1997 9:54 PM > > At 10:46 PM 5/1/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > >I have just had a phone call from a particpant in the news conference of > >the well. What UUNET is doing to many of its peers, including the Well, is > >now clear. According to my caller, Dave Hughes, it has served notice to > >many if not most of its peers that, in late May and early June, it will > >either terminate their peering session or that the peers will have to > >start paying for the privilege. How much will be charged and under what > >conditions is unknown. Why? Because the unfortunate peers either have to > >**sign non disclosure agreements before** they even sit down with UUNET or > >simply be cut off. > > Now how pathetic is this? UUNET one of the original pioneers of the > Commercial Internet, one of the Flagships of open systems, standards, and > connectivity now wants to extort money from other networks for peering? As > if they don't make enough money. Gee wouldn't it really suck for all of > UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had UUNET > peering? Gee they couldn't download any Microsoft products anymore! True, > UUNET is big, true they have many good sites and on-line resources for > customers. But, they are not so good that they deserve some mega-high price > for the honor of accessing their customers. After all, why do you need a > confidentiality agreement if your prices are reasonable? Put a gag-order on > people from complaining about pricing... > > This is also practically extortion. "Yes, we are peers, we have already > decided that our customers and yours would benefit, but YOU and YOUR > customers should pay to access ours...." Maybe everyone should pull out of > peering with UUNET and tell them they need to pay US to peer. Just my $0.02 > > I am all for a commercial Internet, but this takes it WAY to far for my > tastes. At least true telecom carriers are regulated in what they can > charge for interconnects by the FCC or another governmental body in their > own country. Sheesh.. > > Send all flames to: dev(a)null.com > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Matthew E. Pearson > Vice President of Development > Games-Online Inc. > http://www.games-online.com

1 0

DNRC
by Russell Byrne 02 May '97

02 May '97

>Am I the only one that saw the subject line and thought that Dogbert's New >Ruling Class had gone public? No. I thought perhaps Scott Adams is using a new method to send out his Dilbert Newsletter! The last one I got was 6.0, which was sent in June of '95. Netmasters, sorry for the off-topic note, but I thought the overloaded acronym was pretty funny too. -- Russell Byrne, Manager, Network Engineering and Tech Support Dept.s Cogent Software, Inc., 221 E. Walnut St., Ste. 215, Pasadena, CA 91101 Voice: 818/585-2783, FAX: 818/585-2785

1 0