May 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: UUNET: Content vs. CIDR
by Matthew James Gering 02 May '97

02 May '97

> Theoretical question: What if ISP-X had only one dedicated connection > behind it, and subsequently was 1/100,000 the size of NSP-Y. ISP-X's > only connection was a single content provider: Yahoo. > > How do we resolve the settlement issues in this model? Why should > the ISP-X pay NSP-Y to deliver valuable content to its consumers > (dialup and dedicated)? At the network level, Content Providers bear the cost of providing content on the Internet. They must find another way to recoup this cost, and/or pass it on to the consumers of that content. This should *NOT*, and never be a networking issue. > As diagrammed (with Internet / CableTV models referenced) The CableTV model does not apply at all to the Internet, it is entirely different technology. CableTV you have finite bandwidth, which is broadcast. CableCo must choose what content to carry, and users get all that content. In this essence the CableCo is the content reseller. The Internet is not broadcast, ISP's are not content resellers, they provide network access, the user can choose the content, and can establish a relationship directly with the content provider. Routing IP packets are all NSP's should be concerned with, and insuring the cost of routing those packets is recovered -- what is contained within them, and the relationships between the two end nodes is irrelevant (excepting the AUP). Matt

1 0

Re: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by Matthew James Gering 02 May '97

02 May '97

I agree that NSP's should separate cost of Peering from cost of Transit. On the other hand, you are also paying for the size of the Pipe. Only peering is going to reduce the size requirement, and reduce your cost. Matt > But I am still paying Sprint for transit, something I am philosophically > opposed to. Yes, the traffic is less, but why should I pay for transit, > not use it, and make my life more complex, as you point out? > > Bob

1 0

Re: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by Matthew James Gering 02 May '97

02 May '97

MSN does not peer with UUNet, the pay UUNET for transit, and also contract out the dialup to UUNet -- which is a pretty penney from what I heard. BTW, what happened to Microsoft's 8% stake of UUNet when UUNet got acquired by MFS? Matt > A big problem here is the gag clause. This means that special deals will > be cut for the big companies like IBM and MSN and others.

1 0

RE: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by Bownes, Robert M. (EXCH) 02 May '97

02 May '97

On the contrary, as a decent sized, (not huge, not big, but bigger than average, and with a domestic and international footprint), ISP, we would like to be able to get a connection to UUNet or the other major carriers simply to get to *their* networks and those that pay to connect to them. I can get to many of the smaller networks through peering relationships we maintain at NAPs and other avenues as well as transit agreements with two major carriers. We bring both alot of traffic to the table that would like to terminate on those carriers networks and connect to a large number of sites with content (the States of Florida & New York amongst them). I am willing to pay to connect to a major carrier, but I don't want to buy transit. No one I know of, save us, currently offers this. What I would like to do is to connect to, for example, Sprint *just to get to folks who buy from Sprint*, not to transit through them to get to a NAP someplace. Logically, this should be available (and we make such arrangements available) at a lower cost than transit. At the extreme low end, it is a no-cost relationship at exchange points called peering. You suggestion of settlements is not new, in fact, it was a great fear about 18 months ago or so. Perhaps this is it re-occurring in the cyclic nature of the Net. Should someone want to charge me by the packet, I would make that same arrangement with them. As a telephone company, we make those reciprocal agreements all the time (and make money at it). Most of the RBOCs, however, prefer a no fee interchange since the traffic is imbalanced and they are on the loosing end. Should settlements look to be the model, I would build my network differently, putting all inbound traffic on settlement based connections and outbound traffic on non-settlement connections. Easy to do. How can we combat this? By building better interconnectivity amongst ourselves. Local exchanges help to offload traffic that we would otherwise hand off to major NSPs. We are actively campaigning to build exchanges in any city we can for ISPs to exchange traffic, removing it from the NSP backbone. Bob >---------- >From: James Saker[SMTP:jsaker@intellitek.com] >Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 4:09 PM >To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >Subject: UUNET settlement - A call to arms? > > >In reviewing the service literature from UUNET, I can find no reference to >"partial Internet service," "not really the whole Internet, but rather what >we could offer today based on our peering arrangements, which may vary from >day to day, and we are under no obligation to tell our customers what we can >and cannot offer," etc.. I can't find the web server on UUNET that provides >bulletins about what networks are unavailable today, nor does there appear to >be a major-domo list, so when my customers complain about not connecting to >our network from anywhere in North America (through various ISPs), I can >verify that their ISP hasn't paid UUNET for peering, etc.. > >I view such partial service as unacceptable from an NSP, especially when I >can obtain full service from other NSPs for the same or less money. Unless >I'm behind the times, MCI, BBN, PSI and others still have rather complete >networks. > > >

5 4

UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Gordon Cook 02 May '97

02 May '97

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. I first heard an opaque reference to this from a nationally known figure a couple of months ago. In the last 10 days I have heard separately and privately from three different people one of whom is directly affected. I asked him to call me. He never did. Now I think I understand why. Hughes said that David (?) Hollub who is responsible for the Well's connectivity and has just been fired by Bruce Katz the well's owner has revealed in a well conference what UUNET is doing and that the story made it into the wall street journal today. I will be sending Hughes a summary understanding of what I think this means that he will post on the Well inviting national journalists to call me for whatever information/insight I can give them into the story. I would especially like to begin hearing from those directly affected. Please detail very precisely what restrictions you place on the information you send me. First it was AGIS (but who cares about AGIS?). Now UUNET. Tomorrow who? MCI? As UUNET and others of the big five move to consolidate their markets.......... let UUNET put the smaller national backbones against the wall and whom do the rest of ISP's have to rely on? Those ISPs who did not get hit in UUNET's first round of cuts. Will you get it in the neck in the second or the third round? ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************

16 17

RE: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by Bownes, Robert M. (EXCH) 02 May '97

02 May '97

But I am still paying Sprint for transit, something I am philosophically opposed to. Yes, the traffic is less, but why should I pay for transit, not use it, and make my life more complex, as you point out? Bob >---------- >From: Mike Leber[SMTP:mleber@he.net] >Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 6:17 PM >To: Bownes, Robert M. (EXCH) >Cc: 'James Saker'; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >Subject: RE: UUNET settlement - A call to arms? > > >On Fri, 2 May 1997, Bownes, Robert M. (EXCH) wrote: >> What I would like to do is to connect to, for example, Sprint *just to >> get to folks who >> buy from Sprint*, not to transit through them to get to a NAP someplace. > >You can already do this. > >Simply buy a T1 from Sprint and filter out all of the non Sprint routes. >Where you might have normally purchased 10 Mbps transit service, you can >now use just a T1 with the appropriate filters. It will become a pain to >load balance and capacity plan all of those little pipes (increased >expense and complexity), but hey, if you don't want to or can't use an >exchange point this is an alternative. > >But I digress... ;) > >Mike. > >+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ >| Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 | >| Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 | >| mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >

1 0

Sprint joins UUNET in the peering charging squeeze?
by Gordon Cook 02 May '97

02 May '97

I know of two instances where sprint has informed peers that they will now be charged. BLIA becomes a LEN. If sprint is putting the squeeze on you i'd like to hear about it. Also does anyone know if AT&T, Compuserve, and IBM Global Net and EUNET have proven large enough to escape UUNET's demands for money fro continued peering? ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************

2 1

RE: UUNET: Content vs. CIDR
by Steve Hines 02 May '97

02 May '97

Without over-simplifying, or taking a side, aren't we missing the point? The big kids make the rules; if the little kids wanna play, they go along with the big kids' rules. So the short, and not-as-facetious-as-it-sounds, answer to "Why is UUNet committing this atrocity" is "Because they have good reason to believe... 1) it will work; and 2) they'll get away with, and profit from, it." I think Scott Y. nailed it - we vote with our pocketbooks, and with our networks. And we allow (or force?) our customers to do the same - we can't, after all, eat all of these additional expenses, so end-user prices may be driven up by UUNet's actions. If that doesn't meet with acceptance by a balance of the Internet community, including end-users, then a reaction will take place. In the meantime, if your ability to provide service is compromised, I think you'll find that this will prove an opportunity to the "pretty big" providers, in that they will be able to fill the gap by selling transit. And I think undercutting the "big kids" in pricing that service is not only likely, but a moral imperative. :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Steve Hines shines(a)gridnet.com Network Operations 770 518 5392 Gridnet International 1 800 GRIDNET "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- >---------- >From: James Saker[SMTP:jsaker@intellitek.com] >Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 5:40 PM >To: 'Aaron France'; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >Cc: Todd Keener (E-mail) >Subject: UUNET: Content vs. CIDR > > >Aaron France writes: >>Unless we can implement a way to bill eachother for traffic passed >through eachothers pipes (reciprical billing, like telco's), they have >no right to assume that they can bill us because their network is bigger. > > >Theoretical question: What if ISP-X had only one dedicated connection >behind it, and subsequently was 1/100,000 the size of NSP-Y. ISP-X's only >connection was a single content provider: Yahoo. > >How do we resolve the settlement issues in this model? Why should the ISP-X >pay NSP-Y to deliver valuable content to its consumers (dialup and >dedicated)? Does the possession of more CIDR blocks dictate value? In >today's market (of significant price competition, where UUNET is not >terribly competitive), UUNET would probably experience substantial erosion >of its client base. Wall Street and shareholders should pay particular >attention to UUNET's follow-through of this policy as it appears to have >the potential to impact its market share (and subsequently its revenues). > >Traditional broadcasting models work in reverse of the UUNET model, but >again, we're focusing on the wrong layer for settlement; i.e. the value is >in the content, not the CIDR. > >Having UUNET charge peering ISPs for application content on their network >is like having Hughes charge Cox, TCI, and other CATV networks for >receiving CNN's broadcast over the satellite, while also charging CNN to >carry their signal. It is my understanding that the settlement is between >the CATV network and CNN, and Hughes is only transit paid for by CNN out of >this settlement revenue. > >As diagrammed (with Internet / CableTV models referenced), the settlement >model should look like this: > > consumer pays local access provider (ISP / CATV) > local access provider receives content from transit provider (NSP / >Satellite) > transit provider is paid by content provider ("webcaster" / Cable network >channel) > content provider charges local access provider > >Looking at a few other industries, there are significant parallels. With >postal service, the producer of the content usually pays the transit >provider to deliver the content to the recipient. I.e. Compaq pays UPS to >ship a new computer to me. I pay Compaq for the content. Of course, items >can come "postage due," but not typically when the sender has also paid >postage. Does this infer that content producers in the Internet are not >paying 100% of the delivery expense? Considering there is no charge between >UUNET subscribers outside of the fee each pays to connect (i.e. the process >of sending packets to another UUNET subscriber does not create additional >charges outside of the base fee), this does not seem to be the case. > >What then is the origin of the peer point charge? The expense of delivering >the traffic to the exchange for consumption by another external network? >Wasn't this paid for by the content producer (i.e. what is my $3,000 / >month going for, if not for transit to exchange points? Local loops only >cost $340). Again, it appears that freight has been paid for already in the >UUNET model. It appears that the primary motivation for UUNET's move can >only be to eliminate competitive pressures from mid-sized ISPs by >restricting financially viable peering to a handful of providers, >subsequently increasing network service prices. > >Putting our company into the above model, Intellitek (a content provider) >is not interested in charging local access providers for access to our >products at the current time. Marketshare is of significant value, and we >value the unrestrained access to our services consumers of the respective >local access providers. ISPs represent a significant consumer base, and >unrestrained access by these consumers to our content services is key to >the success of our application. > >However, if our transit provider (UUNET) suddenly impacts our ability to 1) >set our delivery policy (presently at zero charge per consumer) and 2) >limits the extent of market reach in its attempt to profit from our >content, I would imagine that we would not continue the use of such a >transit provider, with one exception. > >If we balance the settlements by charging the transit provider, we >subsequently create a situation where charges are being passed on. I.e. >UUNET becomes a wholesaler of Intellitek application services. UUNET >benefits from content consumed from our application service through peer >points. Content is subsequently transfered to UUNET's domain through a >distributor arrangement for delivery to ISP "retail outlets." > >This may work in an environment where peering is not restricted on a casual >basis, and multiple transit arrangements are available. I cannot imagine a >Compaq or Digital limiting distribution of its product through only one >wholesaler -- and content providers equally would not support such a >relationship with its transit provider. > >I expect that if UUNET continues its course, content providers on its >network will either migrate to other networks to ensure delivery of their >content to their market without restriction, or impose settlements on UUNET >that balance the economic model and open their networks multiple transit >providers. > >JRS > >James R. Saker Jr. Intellitek Inc. >President, Network Media Division voice: 402.333.6233 >jsaker(a)intellitek.com fax: 402.333.6432 >http://intellitek.com > > > > >

1 0

UUNET: Content vs. CIDR
by James Saker 02 May '97

02 May '97

Aaron France writes: >Unless we can implement a way to bill eachother for traffic passed through eachothers pipes (reciprical billing, like telco's), they have no right to assume that they can bill us because their network is bigger. Theoretical question: What if ISP-X had only one dedicated connection behind it, and subsequently was 1/100,000 the size of NSP-Y. ISP-X's only connection was a single content provider: Yahoo. How do we resolve the settlement issues in this model? Why should the ISP-X pay NSP-Y to deliver valuable content to its consumers (dialup and dedicated)? Does the possession of more CIDR blocks dictate value? In today's market (of significant price competition, where UUNET is not terribly competitive), UUNET would probably experience substantial erosion of its client base. Wall Street and shareholders should pay particular attention to UUNET's follow-through of this policy as it appears to have the potential to impact its market share (and subsequently its revenues). Traditional broadcasting models work in reverse of the UUNET model, but again, we're focusing on the wrong layer for settlement; i.e. the value is in the content, not the CIDR. Having UUNET charge peering ISPs for application content on their network is like having Hughes charge Cox, TCI, and other CATV networks for receiving CNN's broadcast over the satellite, while also charging CNN to carry their signal. It is my understanding that the settlement is between the CATV network and CNN, and Hughes is only transit paid for by CNN out of this settlement revenue. As diagrammed (with Internet / CableTV models referenced), the settlement model should look like this: consumer pays local access provider (ISP / CATV) local access provider receives content from transit provider (NSP / Satellite) transit provider is paid by content provider ("webcaster" / Cable network channel) content provider charges local access provider Looking at a few other industries, there are significant parallels. With postal service, the producer of the content usually pays the transit provider to deliver the content to the recipient. I.e. Compaq pays UPS to ship a new computer to me. I pay Compaq for the content. Of course, items can come "postage due," but not typically when the sender has also paid postage. Does this infer that content producers in the Internet are not paying 100% of the delivery expense? Considering there is no charge between UUNET subscribers outside of the fee each pays to connect (i.e. the process of sending packets to another UUNET subscriber does not create additional charges outside of the base fee), this does not seem to be the case. What then is the origin of the peer point charge? The expense of delivering the traffic to the exchange for consumption by another external network? Wasn't this paid for by the content producer (i.e. what is my $3,000 / month going for, if not for transit to exchange points? Local loops only cost $340). Again, it appears that freight has been paid for already in the UUNET model. It appears that the primary motivation for UUNET's move can only be to eliminate competitive pressures from mid-sized ISPs by restricting financially viable peering to a handful of providers, subsequently increasing network service prices. Putting our company into the above model, Intellitek (a content provider) is not interested in charging local access providers for access to our products at the current time. Marketshare is of significant value, and we value the unrestrained access to our services consumers of the respective local access providers. ISPs represent a significant consumer base, and unrestrained access by these consumers to our content services is key to the success of our application. However, if our transit provider (UUNET) suddenly impacts our ability to 1) set our delivery policy (presently at zero charge per consumer) and 2) limits the extent of market reach in its attempt to profit from our content, I would imagine that we would not continue the use of such a transit provider, with one exception. If we balance the settlements by charging the transit provider, we subsequently create a situation where charges are being passed on. I.e. UUNET becomes a wholesaler of Intellitek application services. UUNET benefits from content consumed from our application service through peer points. Content is subsequently transfered to UUNET's domain through a distributor arrangement for delivery to ISP "retail outlets." This may work in an environment where peering is not restricted on a casual basis, and multiple transit arrangements are available. I cannot imagine a Compaq or Digital limiting distribution of its product through only one wholesaler -- and content providers equally would not support such a relationship with its transit provider. I expect that if UUNET continues its course, content providers on its network will either migrate to other networks to ensure delivery of their content to their market without restriction, or impose settlements on UUNET that balance the economic model and open their networks multiple transit providers. JRS James R. Saker Jr. Intellitek Inc. President, Network Media Division voice: 402.333.6233 jsaker(a)intellitek.com fax: 402.333.6432 http://intellitek.com

1 0

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

02 May '97

>> 2 - Are they pulling CIX peering? (Can that rtr get any more overloaded? :) That is just an overloaded SMDS connection, not the router itself. >Last I heard, when the CIX moves locations, AGIS, MCI, UUNET, and Sprint >will all be leaving the CIX. > For those who are not aware: --MCI stopped advertising their routes to the CIX router a few months ago. --Sprint is supposed to have stopped peering with CIX yesterday (I haven't verified this yet) --UUnet has indicated they will be leaving CIX These are my observations as a CIX member, not an official CIX statement. Sanjay. --------------------------------------------------------------- Web Professionals, Inc. 20370 Town Center Lane, Suite 245 +1 408-865-0899 Cupertino CA 95014 USA http://web.professionals.com ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0