- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: peering charges?
by Vadim Antonov 29 Jan '97

29 Jan '97

>From Danny Stroud <dannystroud(a)msn.com>: >Don't harangue me about it. Ask Wall Street, look at the numbers for the ISPs, >read the paper regarding the latest AOL flap. This is not my sole opinion. I >will not engage in a philosophical debate on this issue. Sorry, but the >market is the judge. des He. UUNET and PSI show profits even after lots of money spent on expansion. Zillions of small ISPs which "resell" UUNET's and PSI's services are profitable (or they'd close the shop long time ago, because they generally have no cash reserves, and no VC funding). Sprint and MCI do not show profits on Internet side, but their leased line business is _very_ healthy because Internet sells those lines. If anything, telcos provide equivalemt of 64Kbps digital service to anyone for the same $20/mo and are not particularly bankrupt. One has to be completely insane to call the industry with nearly decade of more than 100% annual growth "not economically viable". One has to read way too much creative economists (of statist camp) to believe in anything like that. For once, those economists missed the entire new industry. Now they pretend it doesn't exist or offer moronic suggestions on how to "fix" it. How nice, but we've already seen exactly that scenario with PCs. --vadim PS AOL "flap" is a typical example of blatant incompetence. Their marketroids never heard of market pilots, or something, to measure response before doing something really drastic. If AOL will go under as a result, they won't get a lot of sympathy. PPS What figures? I've certainly seen a lot of creative accounting, when, for example, network build-up is counted as operational expense (Sprint used to do that), whereas all sane people count it as capital. PPPS Wall Street who? I guess not the people who valued UUNET at $2B, right? 4 P S May i politely suggest reading some books on the early history of telephony before writing nonsense? Fortunately, they had fewer economists and lawyers back then (though, Bell had to defend his patents against 576 suits).

1 0

IP Filtering / CIDR Block Size / SprintLink
by McLeodUSA 29 Jan '97

29 Jan '97

Who, in addition to SprintLink, is currently implementing IP filtering based on CIDR block size (/19)? And where can I go to learn more about this issue? I've read the "Q&A conducted by Christy Hudgins-Bonafield with Alecia Cooper, group manager SprintLink product management." at http://techweb.cmp.com/nc/online/sprint.html but couldn't seem to find much on what other carriers are doing. Thanks. Tim Nemec McLeodUSA __________________________________________________________________

7 7

RE: peering charges?
by Danny Stroud 28 Jan '97

28 Jan '97

Don't harangue me about it. Ask Wall Street, look at the numbers for the ISPs, read the paper regarding the latest AOL flap. This is not my sole opinion. I will not engage in a philosophical debate on this issue. Sorry, but the market is the judge. des ---------- From: Vadim Antonov Sent: Monday, January 27, 1997 2:27 PM To: avg(a)pluris.com; Danny Stroud; madison(a)queber.acsi.net Cc: davec(a)ziplink.net; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud <dannystroud(a)msn.com> wrote: >We, the operators, >have a challenge to make the 'net an economically viable industry. Right now >it is not, but we seem to be headed in the right direction. des You may have tons of fun telling that this industry is not economically viable to (for example) Rick Adams. --vadim

1 0

DC-ISOC Tidbits
by Russ＠navigators.com 28 Jan '97

28 Jan '97

I thought this message might also be of interest to memebers of this list. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello DC-ISOC, I hope your New Year is off to a good start. This message contains a couple of requests and a half-day conference announcement that should be of interest to many of you... Russ Haynal ========================================================================= Want to go to CommNET ??? CommNET Is a large industry conference and trade show being held NEXT WEEK in the Washington Convention Center. If you have never been able to make it to CommNET, I am happy to provide you with just the excuse/opportunity you need to attend this great show. The Internet Society (ISOC) has been given a booth for the show. ISOC will provide someone at all times to manage the booth. However, the Internet Society is seeking additional volunteers to help staff the booth. A Key responsibility would be to accept new member registrations. A Secondary responsibility would be to answer questions and hand-out literature. "Working the booth" is a great way to meet many people and share your knowledge about the Internet/ISOC. The Convention floor hours are 10-6 on February 4-6. Volunteers would only have to work one (or more) 2-4 hour shifts. Volunteers should be ISOC members, or people who will sign up as members. (It doesn't make a lot of sense to have someone in the booth talking up ISOC and not spending $35 to be a member.) Anyone interested in volunteering or finding our more details should contact Mary Burger at the Internet Society Headquarters (703-648-9888). A CommNET Booth is a great opportunity for ISOC, please help to make this a success. ================================================================================ DC-ISOC Meeting Locations... As always, the DC-ISOC would like to hear any leads you may have on (free) meeting places in the DC metro region, large enough to hold 200 people. We were able to hold our last meeting at the Marriot Hotel, thanks to the costs being absorbed by Network Solutions ( http://www.netsol.com ). If your organization is interested in covering the costs of a DC-ISOC meeting, please contact Russ Haynal (russ(a)navigators.com or 703-729-1757) Sponsors do receive visibility/recognition to the DC-ISOC Membership (Mailing list includes over 1500 Internet industry participants located mostly in the DC Metro area) ================================================================================ Conference Announcement.... Digital Dilemmas: Defining Ethics in the Internet Age The Internet revolution has sparked a fierce debate among the business, academic, computer, and public policy communities. Today, we are grappling with complex ethical questions such as * Must society ensure that all people have equal access to the Internet? * Can we bridge the gap between network haves and have-nots? * Can the Internet remain a haven for free expression, discreet information consumption, and private transactions? * Can we strike a balance between individual interests and commercialism on the Internet? These new-age questions defy easy answers. They demand new-age solutions. Take part in the debate. Attend Marymount University's conference, Digital Dilemmas: Defining Ethics in the Internet Age. Ethics, Access, and the Internet This conference is for high-tech companies, consumer advocates, cybernauts, academicians, and policy makers who are surveying the landscape of ethical considerations in the Internet Age. Along with the changing structure of communications within our society, we are faced with ethical dilemmas of * Equal access * Free speech * Intellectual property * Privacy * Regulation * Electronic commerce Marymount has assembled an impressive cadre of speakers and panelists who are at the forefront of ethical debate in the Internet Age. Join us for this half-day conference as we explore the controversial issues of ethics, access, and the Internet. Panel One: Moving Beyond the Wire: Who Gains? Who's Left Behind? Whose Internet is it, anyway? Popular opinion holds that the Internet is the great equalizer. No one knows whether you're rich or poor, urban or rural, young or old. No one knows your gender, race, or education. The push is on to wire up our schools, homes, and businesses. But what happens to those who aren't willing or able to get connected? Will they be left out of future political and social debates? Will they miss out on economic opportunities? Is the Internet setting up exclusion criteria, information elites, electronic inequities? What is the impact of the Internet on our society and our economy? What's the role of government and the private sector in ensuring equal access? Panel Two: Uncharted Waters: Privacy, Intellectual Property, and the First Amendment With the unexpected and explosive growth of the Internet, governments, regulating agencies, and individuals in a position of public trust or public office have begun to recognize the power of this new communications medium. In the interest of "protecting" their constituencies, many powerful interests are getting involved. Recently, the issues of privacy, intellectual property, and First Amendment rights have come under intense scrutiny, but precious few legal decisions have charted our course. Are we adrift in a sea of unresolved legal and ethical quandaries? Is the Internet headed for the rocks? Will proposed "solutions" render the Internet powerless? Will free marketers and brash commercialism sail over the free sharing of information? Should technology influence culture or vice versa? Conference Planning Committee: Chair: Jack McDonnell, President and CEO, Transaction Network Services, Inc. Dan Bannister, President and CEO, DynCorp Mario Morino, Chairman, Morino Institute Stephen Allis, Director, Government Affairs, KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP Robert Sigethy, Dean, School of Business Administration, Marymount University Paul Byers, Director, Center for Ethical Concerns, Marymount University Agenda at a Glance 8:30 - 9:00 Registration 9:00 - 9:05 Welcome to Marymount 9:05 - 9:30 Keynote Speaker - Tom Bliley, Chairman, House Commerce Committee 9:30 - 10:30 Beyond the Wire: Who Gains? Who's Left Behind? Moderator: Brit Hume (Fox News, Chief Washington Correspondent and Managing Editor) Speakers:John Sidgmore, CEO, UUNet, Technologies, Inc. Bill Melton, President and CEO, CyberCash, Inc. Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Department of Commerce (invited) 10:30 - 10:45 Coffee Break 10:45 - 11:45 Uncharted Waters: Privacy, Intellectual Property, and the First Amendment Moderator:Paul Byers (Director, Center for Ethical Concerns, Marymount University) Speakers:Don Heath, President, Internet Society Guest, Freedom Forum Harry Litman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice 12:00 - 1:00 Luncheon Speaker:Tom Kalil, Senior Director to the National Economic Council Note: Schedules are subject to change. For the latest information, visit our Web site at http://www.marymount.edu Roads to Marymount University >From north of Washington, D.C.: Take Interstate Rt. 95-South to 495-West to Exit 14 (George Washington Parkway-South) to Rt. 123-North (Chain Bridge Road). Follow to traffic light at end of road. Turn right onto Glebe Road (Rt. 120-South) and follow for 2.5 miles. Marymount is on the left. >From south of Washington, D.C.: Take Interstate Rt. 95-North, which becomes 395 inside the Beltway. Exit Glebe Road (Rt. 120-North), marked "Marymount University." Continue on Glebe Road 6 miles. Marymount is on the right. >From Rt. 66 (either direction): Exit Glebe Road (Rt. 120-North). Drive 1 mile. Marymount is on the right. If you or any of your guests require special consideration because of physical disabilities, please notify the Office of Campus Safety at (703) 284-1601 at least 48 hours prior to your visit. Sponsored by Marymount University's School of Business Administration and Center for Ethical Concerns Marymount University - Located in Arlington, Virginia, Marymount is an independent, comprehensive, Catholic university offering programs to more than 4,000 men and women at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Marymount strives to foster the intellectual, moral, spiritual, social, cultural, and physical development of each student through an education that combines the liberal arts tradition with career preparation. Center for Ethical Concerns - One of the hallmarks of Marymount University is its commitment to providing a values-based education. The Center for Ethical Concerns was founded in 1993 to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas about ethical issues and problems. Through lectures, seminars, workshops, and symposia, the Center offers students, faculty, and the public opportunities to examine ethical concerns facing society. Design by: Franek Design Associates, Inc. Printing by: Print Pro, Inc. Marketing by: Marketek Register Today Digital Dilemmas: Defining Ethics in the Internet Age March 12, 1997, 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Marymount University, Arlington, Virginia To register, complete this coupon (please print or type) and fax it to Marymount University at (703) 284-1544. Or register via the World Wide Web at http://www.marymount.edu after January 31. o Yes, sign me up for the conference NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX E-MAIL Please indicate payment method: Charge my: o Visa o MasterCard Card # Exp. date __________ Signature __________________________________________________ o Check enclosed Make checks payable to Marymount University. Send this form to: Marymount University c/o Barbara Favola Office of the President 2807 North Glebe Road Arlington, VA 22207-4299 Registration fees: o $100 o $45 - students (must show ID) Register early; seating is limited. All registrations must be received by March 5. No refunds provided for cancellations after March 1. However, your registration may be transferred to another individual if you cannot attend. __________________________________________________________________ Russ Haynal - Internet Consultant, Instructor, Speaker "Helping organizations gain the most benefit from the Internet" russ(a)navigators.com http://www.navigators.com 703-729-1757 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Author:"Internet; A Knowledge Odyssey" (Top-rated CD-ROM Tutorial) Available from MindQ Publishing: http://www.mindq.com

1 0

Re: peering charges?
by salo＠msc.edu 28 Jan '97

28 Jan '97

> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:22:32 -0600 (CST) > From: Edward Henigin <ed(a)texas.net> > Subject: Re: peering charges? > > From what I know, routers (ciscos at least) tend to be > packet-limited rather than bandwidth limited.. > > Isn't it a good enough first approximation to count packets > rather than sum packet sizes? It would seem that a reasonable objective for a good network design would be to ensure that the most expensive or otherwise constrained component is the bottleneck in the system. Typically, it makes sense to spend additional money on routers (~ $100,000) to ensure that your links are kept full (e.g, ~ $200,000 /month for a DS-3). This might lead you to conclude that you would like to use a measure that is applicable to your most expensive resource. The bandwidth used on your major links sounds like a good choice, (estimated by counting bytes transferred). -tjs

1 0

Re: peering charges.
by Derek Elder 27 Jan '97

27 Jan '97

Settlements also open another can of worms. Take for example: Provider 1 peers with Sprint (example). Provider 1 sends/receives 10/mb avg. to Sprint. Sprint peers with Provider 1. Sprint sends/receives 5/mb avg to Provider 1 so Provider 1 pays a settlement to Sprint. Next month Provider 1 artificially inflates his utilization with Sprint by continually ftp'ing, etc. to offset the differance. Why would this be any harder to believe than pointing default? And much harder to diagnose, IMO. Pipes are filled for no reason. | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder(a)accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 |

1 0

Re: peering charges?
by Vadim Antonov 27 Jan '97

27 Jan '97

Dirk Harms-Merbitz <dirk(a)power.net> wrote: >> Would you please describe any useful mechanism of traffic-based >> inter-backbone settelemts? >Computers (third party?) on the edges of my network count the number of >packets that transit my network over a certain time period. Periodically I >issue invoices. Ok. How do you translate the number of packets into figure in $s? In a capitalist economy, price generally follows value. What is the value of a packet? It is not even clear if packet crossing from your network to my network gives _me_ any value. It can as well be for _your_ benefit. Since there's no way to determine value, the scheme is thus completely arbitrary; and therefore _is_ regressive. Economics 101. >Of course, other networks do the same. End users >(including co-located computers) simply appear as connected networks that >don't provide any transit, hence they pay for their connection. They do it today. Where's the difference? You seem to forget that carrying traffic is only a part of network service; in fact, a lot of _value_ is in the _ability_ to communicate universally. That's what made Internet a killer to all those X.25 networks. >> Because there is a real cost for long-haul packet transport. > >Remember that I said "if the same amount of packets are transfered". The >speed of my connection does not necessarily affect the number of packets >that I'm transmitting. When you lease an apartment landlord doesn't generally care if you don't sleep there six days out of seven. That's because he has (implied) obligation to provide adequate service during peak usage. > "Connection costs" is rent on transmission facilities, plus > overhead (upkeep of the property, insurance, administration, etc). >No. That's "transmission cost", not "connection cost". The cost of me >connecting to your network (not counting setup and so on) is the sum of >the interface electronics on both ends and whatever link we need >inbetween. Connection costs are generally figured into non-recurring charges. They usually do not exceed costs of equipment and overhead. >Off on a tangent... creating bandwidth is somewhat like making computer >chips. Making the first production Pentium (or whatever) processor costs >billions. The second is a few cents. Here, laying the cable is expensive. >Once it is in the ground, the cost for transporting another packet is >almost zero. This is an example of patently meaningless analogy. _Every_ business (even pyramid scams) has some capital costs. So what. Telcos lend money, put in fiber and than pay loans off from the resulting revenues. They can borrow capital internally, from their shareholders (in form of reduced dividends). The fact that tfiber is not loaded 100% all the time is figured in the user fees. >An interesting question is what do to with potential bandwidth/cpu >cycles/free ram, i.e. what are the costs of not using available capacity? >One answer is that the cost is zero until your competitor starts being >more efficient then you are. See Soviet UNION vs USA. There's no secret that the name of the game in the Internet backbones is "shove congestion back to competitor's backbone". >Back to networks... it would be logical to assume that whenever people >deploy fiber they drop as much as they can afford at that moment. You will be surprised. Sprint has 6 (six) strands of fiber in its trunks. The cost of putting in 100 strands was purely incremental, but then, some beancounters figured that those six strands will be good forever. Now, it's digging time again. >If that's true then there must be enourmous amounts of unlit fiber. In some places. Generally, LDCs are out of capacity. >What's >the total capacity going accross the atlantic or pacific? Not much. It's not like surface cables, where the real cost is digging a tranche, and buying rights of way. It costs next to nothing to drop undersea cable off the ship; but the cable itself with all its hamstrung amplifiers costs a fortune. >How much of it is being used? Practically all of it. BTW, it is generally priced in DS-0 chunks; i.e. when you get a DS-1, you pay the same as for 24 DS-0s. >I'd bet that there are many terabits of fiber that are not in use. Not at all. The worst part of it, you can't just install WDM equipment at the ends, and get more capacity. Replacement of amplifiers in the existing undersea cable is about as costly as putting in new cable. >Yes, of course, the closer you get to what's technologically feasable, >(the closer you move to the border to the future) the more expensive >things become. I guess that's the main argument used to defend higher >costs for faster connections. Never underestimate bandwidth of 10 sq feet of fiber strands. >But we don't even need to go to that edge. Building gigabit, if not >terrabit routers is amazingly simple and can be done with off the shelf >technology. Tell me about it. >Hey, a few Linux boxes interconnected with a few 100MB/sec >ethernet switches in the right fashion would allow the creation of a super >NAP that should outperform gigaswitches easily. Not _that_ simple. I won't go into details on that; but so far the only known way to do that is pretty much covered by the pending patents. >Summary: I would not be surprised if the packet carrying capacity of the >Internet could be increased by two or three orders of magnitude with >surprisingly little investments. The real challenge is how to get people >to do that. Four orders. Then something different is needed. --vadim

6 7

Re: IP Filtering / CIDR Block Size / SprintLink
by McLeodUSA 27 Jan '97

27 Jan '97

At 13:46 1/27/97 -0600, you wrote: >Agis for one that I know of, last I heard Sprint had _stopped_ filtering >blocks smaller than /19 when they fired Doran (I could be wrong). Brett: Sprint is definitely still filtering. Because we are soon to be a Sprint customer we have been able to get them to make an exception and route our /21 prefix. But this is definitely an issue we have to keep abreast of... __________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: peering charges?
by Vadim Antonov 27 Jan '97

27 Jan '97

Dirk Harms-Merbitz <dirk(a)power.net> wrote: >> What is the value of a packet? It is not even clear if packet crossing >> from your network to my network gives _me_ any value. It can as well >> be for _your_ benefit. >Nah, you originated the packet for reasons unknown to me. Yeah? Even when that packet is the direct result of your earlier DNS request? > In a capitalist economy, price generally follows value. >Scarcity creates value, hence the desire to differentiate. Economics 101 again. Scarcity does not create anything. It's merely a range on demand-supply curve. >Once I'm connected, however, transitting traffic through your network is >the only thing that I'm interested in. Why else would I want to connect to >your network? You only interested in transmission at the point where you know _where_ to transmit. Before that you have _no_ idea you may need some specific destination. You don't know all URLs you will ever use beforehand. Thus, universal accessibility has permanent value. > That's because he has (implied) obligation to provide adequate > service during peak usage. >An simplified example. Lets say I have a direct T1 between A and B. A >starts to transfer 4 GBytes from B to A and uses 100% of the bandwidth. >Then B starts another transfer of 4GBytes from A to B. Both now use 50% of >the bandwidth and each transfer takes twice as long. It is a gross oversimplification. Things do not work like that. >I can still telnet between the two locations, even play quake - the load >is hardly noticable for short transfers. Actually, quite opposite. The handshake has nothing like quick start, only exponential back-off; so it is more vulnerable than data transmission stage of the connection. > Connection costs are generally figured into non-recurring charges. > They usually do not exceed costs of equipment and overhead. >That was my point. Why charge a higher _recurring_ fee for a faster >connection? Because the share of higher-level facilities needed to accomodate projected usage is more. > This is an example of patently meaningless analogy. _Every_ business > (even pyramid scams) has some capital costs. So what. >Why meaningless? There's no way to get the money back out once the cable >is in the ground or the chip is being fabricated. And so there is no way to recover all money spent on building a rental complex or sent out to first level of the pyramid. It's the nature of investment, ok? > You will be surprised. Sprint has 6 (six) strands of fiber in its >How do you know? I used to work there. --vadim

1 0

RE: peering charges?
by Vadim Antonov 27 Jan '97

27 Jan '97

Danny Stroud <dannystroud(a)msn.com> wrote: >We, the operators, >have a challenge to make the 'net an economically viable industry. Right now >it is not, but we seem to be headed in the right direction. des You may have tons of fun telling that this industry is not economically viable to (for example) Rick Adams. --vadim

1 0