August 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by salo＠msc.edu 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:12:51 -0700 > From: Vadim Antonov <avg(a)quake.net> > To: ed(a)texas.net, jerry(a)fc.net > Subject: Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > [...] > To be more precise it would have had merit if Internet > metering was at least remotely technically feasible. > [...] The easiest point to measure traffic is undoubtedly on the link between the customer and its ISP. I believe that many ISPs are already measuring the total amount of traffic into and out of each customer. I even saw a complicated pricing formula from one ISP which added a surcharge cor customers which passed a lot of traffic over the last time period (some number of months, I seem to recall). So, at least at one point, we already have at least one example of an ISP which had a component of its pricing based on the amount of traffic transferred over a dedicated connection. A number of other usage-based charging schemes have been proposed which were based on tractable measurements, (e.g., settlements of all sorts of flavors, combits, ...). Measuring traffic accurately enough to use the results in charging is not hard. On the other hand, it is possible to invent measuring schemes which are impossible to implement, (e.g., a host-to-host traffic matrix gathered somewhere nearer the "core" [whatever that is] of the Net. On the other hand, I probably missed your point... -tjs

9 9

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Vadim Antonov 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

Perry E. Metzger <perry(a)piermont.com> wrote: >> Excuse me, but bandwidth demand doubles in about half year, >> while Moore's law is that semiconductor capacity doubles every >> 2 years. There's no indication that this will change any time >> soon. >> >> Nice brick wall :) >I doubt it. I doubt it too, but for entirely different reason. >The curve is racing upward now because of all the people >who are suddenly connecting to the net. Once a large fraction of them >are on the curve will slow dramatically -- demand for bandwidth will >continue to increase, but only as fast as the customers can eat it, >which is by definition related to how fast their equipment runs. Ah, you forgot that Internet is not a single-technology medium. It is not a single wave of customers, it is going to be waves after waves following customer acceptance of newer technologies -- watch Internet telephony, video telephony, 3-D videocom, or whatever bandwidth hog of tomorrow it will be. >There will be some problems between now and the time things slow down, >but... There is a very strong suspiction that Internet is not going to slow down, as new bandwidth-intensive technologies will keep popping up. There's already 20 years of growth fueled by introduction of e-mail, USENET, Web. In a sense it's very much like Moore's Law -- nobody knows what new technology will sustain the trend tomorrow, but the trend is pretty stable. --vadim

1 0

[fwd] Protocol Action: INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES to BCP
by Paul Ferguson 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

I thought this might be of mild interest. - paul [snip] >To: IETF-Announce:; >Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor(a)isi.edu> >Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab(a)isi.edu> >Cc: cidrd(a)iepg.org >Sender: ietf-announce-request(a)ietf.org >From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US> >Subject: Protocol Action: INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES to BCP >Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:51:08 -0400 >X-Orig-Sender: scoya(a)ietf.org > > > > The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft "INTERNET REGISTRY IP > ALLOCATION GUIDELINES" <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt> for > publication as a Best Current Practices RFC. This document is the > product of the CIDR Deployment Working Group. The IESG contact > persons are Scott Bradner and Michael O'Dell. > > >Technical Summary > > This document describes the registry system for the distribution of > globally unique Internet address space and registry operations. > Particularly this document describes the rules and guidelines > governing the distribution of this address space while keeping in mind > the requirements of IP address conservation and the need to distribute > globally unique Internet addresses in a hierarchical manner, > permitting the routing scalability of the addresses. > > "Conservation" and "Routability" are often conflicting goals. These > goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of individual > end-users or Internet service providers. Careful analysis and > judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an appropriate > compromise. > > This document replaces RFC 1466, with all the guidelines and > procedures updated and modified in the light of experience. > > This document can be considered the base set of operational guidelines > in use by all registries. Additional guidelines may be imposed by a > particular registry as appropriate. > > >Working Group Summary > > The working group strongly supported the publication of this document. > A text was added to the document during IESG review on the advice > of a legal review of anti-trust issues. > >Protocol Quality > > This document has been reviewed for the IESG by Scott Bradner and Mike > O'Dell. > >NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: > >Please include the following text as an IESG Note: > > By approving this document as a Best Current Practice,the IESG asserts > its belief that this policy described herein is an accurate > representation of the current practice of the IP address registries > with respect to address assignment. This does not constitute > endorsement or recommendation of this policy by the IESG. The IESG > will reevaluate its approval of this document in December 1997 taking > into consideration the results of the discussions that will be take > place in the IRE Working Group between now and then. > > > [snip]

1 0

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Vadim Antonov 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

Dick St.Peters <stpeters(a)NetHeaven.com> wrote: >> UDP is not bad per se. Broken applications are. >Of course, but it is the misuse of UDP for streaming data transport on >a shared network that makes these applications broken. You can misuse TCP just as well. Somehow the most popular transport protocol comes to mind. --vadim

1 0

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

At 09:37 PM 8/28/96 -0700, you wrote: >Interestingly enough, I switched primary >providers a few months ago because my provider at the time was >switching from a flat rate scheme to a metered one. The end result >was that at my current usage level, my monthly rate would more than >double. Yep. This seems to be the biggest problem with metered pricing. At some point in the "we need to go to metered pricing" discussion, people heads go funny and they start to think "now we will make the big bucks!" and drive the pricing scale off the map. Models where the highest "tier" is at or possibly a little higher than current flat-rate costs (depending the costs, which obviously vary). If, like Matt's example, the rates suddenly double (as they frequently) do, it's a sign that the provider is either a) not good with cost analaysis, or b) soaking the customer Neither type is going to be a long term player. If someone is using a full T1, you need to be able to afford that much bandwidth just for them all the way through your network ("duh," says everyone), whether you're letting the low-usagers cover costs on the high-usagers in a flat-rate scheme, or they're paying (somewhat) more for metered rates. For the last couple of years everyone's been sucked into the flat-rate versus hourly rate argument for dialup. This is the same thing with bigger numbers. Flat rate seems to have won there, often with some kind of limits. Perhaps some kind of price penalty for those who drive their connection to the wall all the time... Perhaps pricing schedules with tiers a whole lot more doglegged would be more acceptable to the consumer. Not to say that everyone is doing this wrong. Dave Siegel is doing some (good) work in this area (good enough to sell me a line), and I'm sure there are others too. Hopefully it will be enough to keep the moneygrabbers at bay over the long run. Later, Jeff

1 0

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Vadim Antonov 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

Dick St.Peters <stpeters(a)NetHeaven.com> wrote: >> One dirty little secret is that most >> phone calls and videoconferences ram their way past data transmissions >> by using a bully of a communications method called UDP. Unlike the more >> polite Transmission Control Protocol, TCP, which drops back >> when it detects congestion, UDP continues at full speed, elbowing >> ahead of TCP traffic. >Sigh, I guess you need to have part of your network shut down by the >above-described effect to appreciate just how unusually accurate a >portrayal that description is. ping -f does it much better. UDP is not bad per se. Broken applications are. --vadim

2 1

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Vadim Antonov 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)ibm.net.il> wrote: >> To be more precise it would have had merit if Internet >> metering was at least remotely technically feasible. >IBM Israel has been handling its leased line and Web sites >with metering since day 1. There seems to be a massive confusiuon here. What isn't feasible is end-to-end telco-style metering, which is what those articles all about. (Actually, anybody who ever made international calls knows that telcos also cannot do complete metering and simply ignore load on in-country circuits). Metering on customer access lines does not change economics of backbones at all (where all the real hard problems are). In other words, the access line metering is irrelevant to what is discussed. Generally speaking, at least 70% of users already have metered access of that kind (in form of per-hour connect time charges), so in this sense Internet is metered already, and was like that for years. Obviously that's not "metering" Metcalfe et al are calling for. (BTW, i know providers who do attempt to charge differently for local and international traffic by counting packets, but they have developed quite a lot of software and have the financial and legal framework to support it. The fact that they don't have anything faster than E-1 helps a lot, too.) --vadim

1 0

MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by William Allen Simpson 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

> From: Bill Woodcock <woody(a)zocalo.net> > Does this mean that > it's going to be even harder to deal with MFS? Humpf. > Not having dealt with MFS, but as the part owner of a small ISP, we've always found the LDDS folks to be very helpful and easy to work with in the midwest; they provide our links. It's SprintLink at the next level ISP up we've always had trouble with -- measured 10-20% ping loss this morning on their Chicago NAP link.... 11: 198.32.130.228 aads-F.sprint.net. (216 ms) (220 ms) (201 ms) 12: 144.228.56.9 sl-chi-6-H3/0-T3.sprintlink.net. (205 ms) *** (230 ms) 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

8 11

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Aug '96

29 Aug '96

>To be more precise it would have had merit if Internet >metering was at least remotely technically feasible. IBM Israel has been handling its leased line and Web sites with metering since day 1. We have a an NV/6000 application that polls the routers where the leased line has the interface or subinterface to the customer. We have a table indicating what the line speed is. On the 1st of every month, the user is automatically emailed an accting report indicating line usage and as a percentage of the total max thruput. We have a number of levels (10%, 30%, 70%, etc.) and the user pays based on their actual thruput levels. We track each virtual Web site for thruput also but bill based just on disk space allocated (simpler model than for leased lines). Hank

1 0

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Vadim Antonov 28 Aug '96

28 Aug '96

Edward Henigin <ed(a)texas.net> wrote: > Unmetered usage develops an environment which puts some sort >of backpressure on the end user, to discourage or prevent the usage >of too much resource. .... >The journalist may be stupid, but the point has some merit. To be more precise it would have had merit if Internet metering was at least remotely technically feasible. Or are we going to discuss some hot mountain real estate deals we could get by melting some ice in Antarctic? --vadim

1 0