April 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Buy tier 1 peering for only $15 million
by Sean Donelan 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

I violently agree you should conduct due diligence when purchasing any company to make you get what you thought you were getting. Much like when Anheuser-Busch bought SeaWorld and forgot to check the contract to see if it included Shamu. Or BBN actually counting the routers in BARRNET to see if they matched the ones on the books. I've been told the ISPs' auditors are doing due diligence of the peering agreements in this case. On the other hand, of all the peering battles I've heard about, I've never heard of a peering agreement being terminated as a result of a change of ownership of the ISP. Even in Verio's case, when Verio was both a customer and a peer of different providers as it bought various providers (most companies have strict policies against peering with customers), from my outside (without NDA information) place, I didn't notice peering sessions suddenly going away. On Thu, 20 April 2000, Randy Bush wrote: > >> ...such relationships are not always 'transferrable,' > >> and one should evaluate any existing contractual > >> agreements regarding said relationships before making > >> such assumptions. > > > > So even though Jeff's statement is technically true, I don't think > > it is very practical. > > it is extremely practical. and when purchasing an asset, review > of contracts is exceedingly prudent. and the confidentiality of > those contracts is not an issue as the contract review is under > nda.

1 0

Technology Staff Hierarchy
by Hermann Wecke 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

Does anybody have references to info on technology staff hierarchy/roles models in Telcos/ISPs? TIA...

1 0

Gigabit Traffic Monitoring
by Rubens Kuhl Jr. 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

Does anybody know a product to do Gigabit Ethernet traffic monitoring, like CoralReef does for OC3/OC12 ? Rubens Kuhl Jr.

1 0

Buy tier 1 peering for only $15 million
by Sean Donelan 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

AGIS is going on the auction block. NextLink paid over a billion dollars for a provider with essentially full peering with the major backbones, now you too can buy peering agreements from a one-time "tier 1" provider. According to InteractiveWeek the high bid is only US$15 million. http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2552561,00.html Then again, maybe AGIS's anti-peering policies of a few years ago make them a less attractive purchase.

2 1

Re: Buy tier 1 peering for only $15 million
by Sean Donelan 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

On Wed, 19 April 2000, Jeff Barrows wrote: > ...such relationships are not always 'transferrable,' > and one should evaluate any existing contractual > agreements regarding said relationships before making > such assumptions. And since those relationships are covered by NDA, you can't evaluate such existing contractual agreements, .... If you want to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt; it isn't always clear companies actually complete the "transfer" of the peering agreements when they buy, merge, or spin-off different parts of themselves. I hate to be the one who has to figure out the status of a Worldcom, Cable&Wireless or Genuity agreement as they passed through several mergers, spin-offs, name changes, change of control, etc. I wonder what happens to all of Sprint's peering agreements if they are bought by Worldcom or spun-off as a separate company. It would be very amusing to watch the Sprint folks run around NANOG trying to get back the few peering agreements they had because the agreements terminated because the company was sold. After watching what happened with the InternetMCI spin-off, I wouldn't be surprised the DOJ is watching how "transfers" happen. Will Sprint still be a "tier 1" provider? Its amazing the net works at all. The reality is I think it would be very unusual if UUNET terminated Genuity's or Sprint's peering agreement just because the ownership changed. If UUNET wouldn't do it in the case of those cases, they would have a difficult time explaining to DOJ why they would terminated a different provider's peering agreement if its ownership changed. So even though Jeff's statement is technically true, I don't think it is very practical.

4 3

Level Three europe, anyone on board?
by Thomas Kernen 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

Is there anyone from Level Three Europe that has a clue about engineering since customer care blocks all contact with the engineers (Can't get someone to advertise a route correctly). Thomas

1 0

Re: Peering Table Question
by I Am Not An Isp 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

At 08:50 AM 4/20/00 -0600, Forrest W. Christian wrote: >On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, I Am Not An Isp wrote: > >> In Other Words: Network B is carrying 1500 byte packets 3000 miles, and >> Network A is carrying 64 byte packets 3000 miles. > >Ahhh now I see... Network B is actually carrying ~25x the traffic for a >given flow..... Thus is costs them 30x as much for the cross-country >piece, and thus Network A should in some way help out with the costs. Now the not-so-operational question is: Does that make Network A a "customer" of Network B? Or are they just trying to be genuine "peers" by sharing everything, including the cost of carrying *both sides* of the TCP flow? >- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc(a)imach.com) KD7EHZ TTFN, patrick -- I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com> "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle (Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)

1 0

Net traffic flows
by Sean Donelan 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

On Wed, 19 April 2000, I Am Not An Isp wrote: > AS1 used to claim that they wanted "settlement based peering" from people, > and they said they would be 100% fair about it. If you peered with AS1 and > had more than a 2:1 delta (to AS1 : from AS1), you paid $XXX per > (something). If AS1 sent you more than double what you sent them, THEY > would pay YOU. I've long been on record as saying I would sign any peering agreement with *RECIPROCAL* compensation. I can always arrange my traffic so they pay me, or at worst it is net zero. This is simple game theory. The greedier the compensation rate, the better off I am. Only an ILEC would be dumb enough to demand reciprocal compensation.

1 0

Re: Peering Table Question
by Jeff Barrows 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

One shouldn't necessarily believe any third-party web pages, documents, articles, or verbal statements about which networks any given network is peered with. Though I have seen many articles, web pages, and other tables that detail which networks are 'peering,' I have never seen an accurate representation of this type of data from a third party. It is difficult for a shared-medium (or direct) exchange point operator to keep this type of information up-to-date and accurate. ...and, more importantly, many of their customers consider this type of information confidential. To further complicate matters, many networks out there are mis-representing themselves as [cost-free-] peering with other networks when they are actually customers, or in some type of 'settlement' arrangement. As for your second question about the locations that networks interconnect, many networks consider this information sensitive as well-- though during your conversations with them, they will typically exchange that data with you-- though probably under a mutual NDA. Some choose to peer in locations where it is the most cost-effective between the two networks, while others peer in a smaller set of locations that make sense from a network hierarchy/topology perspective. The decision about whether to peer with a given network privately/directly versus at a public exchange point is often based on the amount of traffic to be exchanged, the network coverage area, and other such criteria. With a bit of knowledge, tools, routing table vantage points, and time, you should be able to find out most of what you want to know on your own. You might start by asking the operators of the exchange points (where you intend to connect) who their current customers are-- then you can contact those networks individually. Some exchange points will give you an "I want to peer with you" form and a list of e-mail addresses, so that you can mass-request. Don't get cook'ed by the wealth of misinformation out there. - jsb -- Jeff Barrows Director, Internetwork Engineering UUNET, an MCI-Worldcom Company > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:20:03 -0500 > From: Jeff Lentz <jeff(a)sbtek.net> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Peering Table Question > > > I apologize if this question is not relevant to your discussions, but > Susan Harris, e-mail address srh(a)merit.edu, suggested that I ask it > here... > > The peering table that appears on the London Internet Exchange web site > www.linx.net/peering.html...... is this something that can be generated > for different peering locations? Also with this information would it > be > possible to create a table that lists companies and the cities that > they > are peering in? Any insight would be of great help to me thank you. > > Once again any advice on how or where to obtain this info would be of > great benefit to me. Thanks > > Jeff Lentz > > > > > > >

16 18

More neat stuff from Network Solutions
by W. Mark Hagler 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

Anybody else see this?? Apparently Network Solutions has hired a collection agency to send nasty email to people who have registered but haven't paid for domains. But, as per usual with Network Solutions, they can't get anything right. I haven't ever registered the domain they're trying to collect from me! I've asked this super-duper internet collection agency to furnish me with evidence that I "contracted" with Network Solutions in October for this, but I'm not honestly expecting any reply. -------- Original Message -------- From: Solutions(a)lhainc.com Subject: $70.00SPAMBURG.COM LHA ACCT# 48305 To: hagler(a)th.in.gs Lamont, Hanley & Associates, Inc. PO Box 179 Manchester, NH 03105 USA Email: Solutions(a)lhainc.com RE: Network Solutions, Inc. During October 1999 you contracted with Network Solutions, Inc. to register domain names on your behalf. Despite the fact they completed their obligation to you, a registration fee of $70 per domain name remains unpaid. As a reference, one of the unpaid domain names and the amount due Network Solutions, Inc. is noted in the subject line. Network Solutions, Inc. has forwarded the matter to our organization for immediate attention. Payment options are noted below for your convenience. Your LHA Account Number is referenced above in the Subject line as "LHA Acct" and must be included with your payment. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. To pay by credit card, click below or key this URL: https://diversehost.net/secure/lhapaymentcenter.com/ecard.asp To authorize us to create your check for immediate deposit, click below or key in this URL: https://diversehost.net/secure/lhapaymentcenter.com/e-check.asp If sending full payment by mail, click below or key in this URL: https://diversehost.net/secure/lhapaymentcenter.com/mail_check.asp For customer service, click below or key in this URL: https://diversehost.net/secure/lhapaymentcenter.com/inquiry.asp Should you need to attach a document that cannot be sent as part of an e-mail, please mail the information to Lamont, Hanley & Associates, Inc., PO Box 179, Manchester, NH 03105. Sincerely, Lamont, Hanley & Associates, Inc. Collection Division (603) 625-4920 Important Notices: This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Please note that this communication is from a debt collector. Unless you notify this office within thirty days after receiving our initial notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving our initial notice, this office will: obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you make a request to this office in writing within 30 days after receiving our initial notice, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. Office Hours: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST

2 1