November 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: national stats. on ISP qty/size?
by Sean Donelan 28 Nov '96

28 Nov '96

>Anyone know where I can find aprox. stats. on number and >size of ISP's in north america? Is this presently tracked >(guessed at?) anywhere? Depends on what kind of "ISP" you are interested in. For dialup, Boardwatch Magazine <http://www.boardwatch.com> has a quarterly listing of Internet providers. If you think the Internet is more than just dialup, I suggest looking at some more sources. The Maloff Company <http://www.maloff.com/> has lots of good, but now out-of-date (February 1996 is ancient for the Internet) information in their report on the Internet marketplace. For information on how part of the non-profit Internet Providers are doing, the 1996 study on libraries and the Internet released this Fall is a good starting place <http://istweb.syr.edu/Project/Faculty/McClure-NSPL96/NSPL96_T.html>. Things are both better, and worse than you've read in the popular press. The traditional thinktanks, the Gartner Group, Forrester Research, etc, also have a number of studies of the Internet, but I can never afford to even look at their catalog. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: national stats. on ISP qty/size?
by Ben Liberman 28 Nov '96

28 Nov '96

(Let's try that again with the CORRECT number for "annual revenue per employe." 199.55 looked just a bit on the low side ;-) Thanks to all who replied. Boardwatch (http://www.boardwatch.com/) was a treasure trove of info. Here is a sample from their web page at <http://www.boardwatch.com/isp/intro2.htm> derived from their survey of 3000+ providers (if I read it correctly.) Internet Service Provider Profile (excluding top and bottom 10% of all ISPs surveyed) Average time in business: 22.2 months Average number of employees: 12.98 Average gross annual revenues: $637,571.76 Average annual revenue per employee: $49,119.55 Average hardware/software investment: $165,615 Average number of dialup customers: 1843.53 Average annual growth rate: 93% Average number of dial-up ports 198.95 Average bandwidth to backbone: 2.94 Mbps Average bandwidth per dialup port: 14.4 kbps Average investment in hardware/software per customer: $89.83 Average price of 28.8 kbps dialup account: $19.95 per month ------------------------------ ben(a)BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------

1 0

Re: national stats. on ISP qty/size?
by Ben Liberman 28 Nov '96

28 Nov '96

Thanks to all who replied. Boardwatch (http://www.boardwatch.com/) was a treasure trove of info. Here is a sample from their web page at <http://www.boardwatch.com/isp/intro2.htm> derived from their survey of 3000+ providers (if I read it correctly.) Internet Service Provider Profile (excluding top and bottom 10% of all ISPs surveyed) Average time in business: 22.2 months Average number of employees: 12.98 Average gross annual revenues: $637,571.76 Average annual revenue per employee: 119.55 Average hardware/software investment: $165,615 Average number of dialup customers: 1843.53 Average annual growth rate: 93% Average number of dial-up ports 198.95 Average bandwidth to backbone: 2.94 Mbps Average bandwidth per dialup port: 14.4 kbps Average investment in hardware/software per customer: $89.83 Average price of 28.8 kbps dialup account: $19.95 per month ------------------------------ ben(a)BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------

1 0

national stats. on ISP qty/size?
by Ben Liberman 28 Nov '96

28 Nov '96

Anyone know where I can find aprox. stats. on number and size of ISP's in north america? Is this presently tracked (guessed at?) anywhere? Is it even trackable? ;-) ------------------------------ ben(a)BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------

4 3

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by reb＠ieng.com 27 Nov '96

27 Nov '96

> At 9:37 AM 11/26/96, Avi Freedman wrote: > > > Route reflecting sounds like a good topic - could I interest any of you > > in presenting on it? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh(a)merit.edu > > I would be willing to present, though as I said I think a separate meeting > to see what people really want is needed. > > I think the issues are: > > o (Briefly) The politics and technology of peering > o Easier peering between multiple parties: MLPA > o Since no NAP operator is going to enforce an MLPA, how can peering between > multiple willing parties still be made to happen with less people time > involved in the setup? > o Why might the RA not be the best tool - or why might it be? > o Possible goal: > o Participants sign a contract expressing a desire to peer with anyone > else signing the contract (not exclusively) through a route-reflecting > box. > o You can only offer routes for you and "your customers" via this. No > partial transit to specific people can be offered. > o Boxes at each interesting exchange point that people can then peer with > to effect the agreement. One or two Cisco 2501s would work fine, but > RA-type boxes which can "hide" their ASs in the middle might be > interesting as well (Peter Lothberg arguments about BGP not being > designed to 'work that way' possibly put aside). > o Filtering: > o Box-side filtering to enforce sanity? > o Concerns > o Who's going to run the thing? > o Network stability? > o What happens to control bad neighbors? > > Or, perhaps a separate mailing list is needed in the interim to allow > people to discuss the issue without boring uninterested members of > the nanog list... While your outline sounds great wrt its chosen topic, the topic doesn't sound like what I consider to be route-reflecting -- specifically, route reflection in (i)BGP. Your outline sounds more like "politics and operational issues surrounding peering and route-serving at a NAP." Can someone clarify which of the two topics is the burning topic that people would like presented? Note that both topics may be burning issues and worthy of a presentation at the next NANOG... thanks, eric ---- R. Eric Bennett <reb(a)ieng.com> | Internet Engineering Group 313-669-8800 (v) 313-669-8661 (f) | 122 S. Main, Suite 280 http://www.ieng.com/ | Ann Arbor, MI 48104 "Radical Rodent: Superdynamic Rodent of Tomorrow" -- http://home.earthlink.net/~krhughes/Rat.html

4 3

Re: A stat on billing costs for LD...
by scope＠cais.cais.com 27 Nov '96

27 Nov '96

At 11:59 AM 11/26/96 -0800, Vadim Antonov wrote: >Scott Huddle <huddle(a)mci.net> wrote: >> Bell Atlantic... > >> In model, Binford said that against long distance revenue it >> estimated charges of 28% for access, 20% marketing and sales, 19% >> transport, 6% billing services, 8% administration, customer care >> and fund for uncollectables. He said that left 19% in pretax >> margins. > >>Anyone thinking that billing costs are 50%+ of charges are >>encouraged to short BA, as they are about to lose a bundle. > >It's an RBOC model. The 50% figure was floated in relation >to LDCs which have entirely different econmical model. Not only that, part of the cost of the LDC model is to have the RBOCs bill most of their consumer long distance. BA probably sees billing as an incremental add on to their domestic billing structure as it stands today. I would bet that we will see a greater difference when the RBOCs try to go national. jd > >BTW, the usage accounting costs are also hidden in "transport" and >"administration". And don't forget capital sunk into the machinery >required to support that. > >Meaningless figures again... I'd love to see some real statistics. > >--vadim > Jeff Studds Internet Stuff scope(a)cais.com phone +1 301 699 1840 The internet: It's not just an adventure... it's a job:-)

1 0

Re: national stats. on ISP qty/size?
by scope＠cais.cais.com 27 Nov '96

27 Nov '96

Anybody at the CIX want to answer? jeff At 02:21 AM 11/27/96 -0600, Ben Liberman wrote: > >Anyone know where I can find aprox. stats. on number and >size of ISP's in north america? Is this presently tracked >(guessed at?) anywhere? > >Is it even trackable? ;-) > > >------------------------------ > ben(a)BL.COM Ben Liberman >------------------------------ > > > Jeff Studds Internet Stuff scope(a)cais.com phone +1 301 699 1840 The internet: It's not just an adventure... it's a job:-)

1 0

Re: The Cidr Report
by William Allen Simpson 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

> From: randy(a)psg.com (Randy Bush) > > > Date Prefixes > > 171196 40844 > > 171196 40868 > > 181196 40933 > > 191196 42076 > > 201196 40674 > > 211196 40583 > > 221196 40525 > > Tony, I suspect that you and your weekly report are, in a large part, > responsible for this. I thank you. Our routers thank you. > Date Prefixes 280996 42250 290996 42040 300996 42235 011096 42228 021096 42249 031096 42109 041096 41894 Yeah, me, too! Comparing with nearly 2 months ago pasted in above, this is a fantastic trend! Down 1700 routes (except sometimes). > Frank, if you're out there, has the curve changed since Tony started > publishing again? > One of the things that I'm curious about: have any of the "interesting aggregates" been acted upon? The list seems to be getting _more_ entries, instead of the fewer I'd expect. Perhaps I don't understand the algorithm. I find it hard to compare and check by eye. By simple diff, I can see that ANS and UUNET have been fixing them, since they've mostly disappeared from the list. But others seem to pop in and out, and sometimes spawn many where there was only one line before, particularly AGIS, MSEN, PREPnet and PSInet, all of whom should know better. Could that be automatically added to the weekly summary? "Recent aggregations", just before Interesting? A tally of successes that would be more clear than withdrawn route counts.... But folks _are_ withdrawing routes by the hundreds! WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by Scott Huddle 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

Bill Manning (bmanning(a)ISI.EDU) wrote > > > > Include total exchanged traffic, or presented traffic, as well. > > Rank order the different exchanges by this metric. > > > > > > btw, would there be any interest in the growthrates of > > > > selected exchanges? > > > > > > Not a likely possiblity. With some of the exchanges, > this data is near impossible to gather. I'd be happy > to post growth rates in the form of participants. How about routes presented? I'm looking for a relative measure of size for the participants at the IXP, as opposed to just a count of number of participants. -scott

2 1

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by Paul Ferguson 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

At 02:52 PM 11/26/96 -0800, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU wrote: > > btw, would there be any interest in the growthrates of > selected exchanges? > > I could whip up some numbers if folks are interested. > Yes, please do. - paul

1 0