October 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
by Vadim Antonov 11 Nov '96

11 Nov '96

Roger Bohn <Rbohn(a)UCSD.edu> wrote: At 8:36 PM -0700 10/24/96, Vadim Antonov wrote: >Note that i didn't even talk about less measurabe, but way too >more important things like hosting of information suppliers. >Say, Big Provider connects 1000 web sites; Small Provider hosts >1 site -- benefit from peering in terms of Web site diversity to >the Big Provider's customers is 0.1%. To Small Provider's >customers the benefit of peering is 99.9%. >Oops, this has an arithmetic fallacy. Assuming that Big Provider also has >1000x more customers than Small Provider, and that all 1001 web sites are >equally attractive, then there are 1000 BP customers each with a .001 >chance of wanting to surf the SP web site. Compare this with 1 SP customer >with a .999 chance of wanting to surf a BP web site, and a .001 chance of >surfing the SP web site. No, this is not about mutual traffic -- this is about benefit to _a_ customer. Your computation is correct but is completely irrelevant from the point of view of a customer. They're interested in reacheability, not traffic at some exchange point. I.e. each small ISP's customer derives 99.9% of benefit from the peering, while large ISP's customer derives only 0.01%. Hence, the large ISP can force small ISP to pay up -- without connectivity to a large ISP the small ISP will be dead pretty soon. This is exactly like grocery chains which can (and do) force consumers to pay up for food -- although you can grow your own tomatoes in your backyard and probably sell them to those grocery chains. Good chances are, they're not interested. --vadim

10 21

AGIS/DIGEX
by Bob Collie 03 Nov '96

03 Nov '96

>From recent discussions on this list, I thought that the reason that DIGEX could not reach AGIS sites (and vice-versa) was because of AGIS's new peering policy, and not because of a circuit disconnection. (from http://agisgate.agis.net/outage.htm) Problems Reaching DIGEX -- UPDATED 10:40 EST October 29, 1996 Digex has disconnected their ANS circuit. We previously saw Digex routes only through ANS (our direct connection with Digex has been gone for a few months now). Since Digex is at too few NAPs to peer with AGIS, and they are not at the CIX, we see no routes from them. -- Bob Collie, Network/Systems Engineer, Telalink Corporation mailto:rmc@telalink.net

14 27

Incentive for route stabilty
by Scott Mace 01 Nov '96

01 Nov '96

Here's an idea that just popped into my head after NANOG. Lets assume for a moment that the majority of route instabilty is coming from inexperienced providers. With that assumption in hand I propose the following incentive: Finanical compensation for bgp dampening policies. Deep pockets = very little flap penalty Shallow pockets = very heavy flap penalty Also, make the assumption that inexperienced providers arn't going to be able to pay for light flap penalties. So their only choice is to be stable or die. I havn't thought about how or where such a policy would be applied, but the underlying idea would help fix the problem of routing instabilty. I know this one is out there, but I just thought I'd mention it. Scott -- smace(a)neosoft.com - KC5NUA - Scott Mace - Network Engineer - Neosoft Inc. Any opinions expressed are mine.

6 5

Word is getting out
by Lon R. Stockton, Jr. 31 Oct '96

31 Oct '96

Thought this news item was interesting, given recent conversations here regarding peering (or lack thereof). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- THERE IS A WAR GOING ON! There are those who have been predicting the Internet would collapse under its new found weight. I predict it is collapsing from greed. Some of you may have noticed that certain sites on the east coast have been unreachable for the last 5 days. It is because of a disagreement between a major backbone carrier and other regional Network Access Providers. The major carrier has removed the regional carrier from their routing tables. TechKnow Times is currently investigating this story and as soon as the story details can be confirmed we will bring a special report. REMEMBER THIS: You read about this first in TechKnow Times.... Thom <Editor(a)TechKnowTimes.Com> ------- End Forwarded Message --------

1 0

Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
by Andy lague 31 Oct '96

31 Oct '96

Here's a possibility offered for discussion for minimizing the effect of someone pointing default to you at an exchange point. This would not defeat all defaulting but might make the effect less painful. Do not carry a full routing table on your exchange point router. Only carry routes to your customers and to networks with which you peer at that particular exchange point. That way if someone sends you traffic destined for a peer that you do not see at that exchange point, like via private peering on another router or at another exchange point, your exchange point router will not have a route to it. Traffic from a defaulting network destined for one of your local peers could be forwarded to that peer directly without crossing your backbone. Also, it may help in detecting a defaulting network. If a customer of the evil defaulting network traceroutes to a destination that ends on your exchange point router and sends it to your NOC as a problem - their caught. This would work best at exchange points that are less than fully attended. -Andy

2 1

Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
by Chris A. Icide 31 Oct '96

31 Oct '96

At 09:39 PM 10/30/96 -0800, Andy lague wrote: > >Do not carry a full routing table on your exchange point router. Only carry >routes to your customers and to networks with which you peer at that >particular exchange point. > > Sorry, but I'm about 50 mails behind in this thread, so I may repeat something someone may have suggested, but I'll give it a shot in case someone hasn't said this. Might there be a way Cisco (ahem, the router vendor) could add an IP or MAC based inbound (or outbound) filter on the next hop? If so, I could maintain a filter that matches my peers. This would not prevent my peers from pointing default at me, but would prevent non-peers from doing so. Chris

2 1

Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
by Tony Li 31 Oct '96

31 Oct '96

Do not carry a full routing table on your exchange point router. Only carry routes to your customers and to networks with which you peer at that particular exchange point. How is this supposed to help if you're providing transit? Tony

1 0

Tennessee Circuit Charges
by Derek Elder 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

As I am fairly new to this list, please feel free to flame me at will if this is off-topic, not of interest, or being heavily discussed elsewhere. Are any of you running into instances such as we are in Tennesee where the state it imposing an 'ISP Tax" that we are to pay? They are even claiming that that tax is retroactive to 1994...it also appears that the state legislature is considering a tarrif amendment allowing BellSouth to charge more than $1.00/hour surcharge for data calls. I know that many of you have already or are currently fighting PUC battles and I would appreciate any insight on the subject. I will now take this offline and would appreciate any responses via private email (unless everyone is interested). | Derek Elder | djelder(a)accessus.net

1 0

Re: Peering Policy ( was Re: AGIS/DIGEX )
by Scott Huddle 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> writes > > > > > The bookkeeping costs $2000 per month for *BOTH* providers to monitor > > > > > this, collect data, collect bills, etc.... > > > > > > > > Source of data, please? > > > > > > Same source as the other guy's data. I pulled it out of thin air. > > > Actually, I figured $2,000 per month would be an appropriate salary for > > > one clerk to handle this job. > > > > > > And the point was that managing settlements costs money. We know that in > > > the POTS system the costs of usage based billing are at least 50% of the > > > total. > > > > OK, do you have a source for the POTs number? > > Of course not! I have an axe to grind here. I want to see global flat-rate > telephone service for everybody. No per-minute charges, period! Your argument changes from an economic one to a political one. If you want to run for office, there are better forums. If you want to convince people who are building commercial networks, get some facts. -scott

1 0

Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
by Paul Ferguson 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

I think this sounds like a fine idea. - paul At 02:25 PM 10/30/96 -0500, Jon Zeeff wrote: > >Which is why someone at NANOG suggested using the port # (vs. MAC address). > >> > Problem is that if hardware fails or is swapped out, MAC addresses change. > >

1 0