January 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Favorites (Re: UUNET peering policy)
by Paul Vixie 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

rmeyer(a)mhsc.com (Roeland Meyer) writes: > To top it all off, it is not all that clear that AboveNet has no retail > transit feeds. ... I had no idea (that this wasn't clear). There is never a telco circuit between Abovenet and a customer -- it's always a private right of way, usually a piece of fiber but sometimes copper. Abovenet's customers include ISP's and IAP's and ASP's and so on. Your word ("retail") isn't accurate since Abovenet's customers also include IP bandwidth consumers, not just resellers. But it's absolutely true that our equipment is always colocated with the customer's equipment. Sometimes it's our location, sometimes it's the customer's location, sometimes it's a third party's location. But it's always some shared location, thus the term "colocation". If there any other questions about Abovenet, please address them to me privately unless you're REALLY SURE that all of NANOG wants to hear the question (and my near-inevitable answer.) -- Paul Vixie <Paul.Vixie(a)MMFN.COM> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX) AboveNet, PAIX, and MIBH are subsidiaries of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.

1 0

FBI and new year's eve DOS
by Chris Beggy 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

The LA times is to report today on FBI interest in New Year's Eve DOS attempts: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash32.htm Chris -- Information may want to be free, but fiber optic cable wants to be a million US dollars per mile. -- Shawn McMahon <smcmahon(a)eiv.com>

5 4

peermaker and brain spikes
by Rick Irving 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Hey, Worldcom! Contact me. Mail Administrator wrote: > > This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason: > > The following destination addresses were unknown (please check > the addresses and re-mail the message): > > SMTP <Peermaker_Secure_id_Help(a)lists.wcom.com> > > Please reply to Postmaster(a)imlists1.mcit.com > if you feel this message to be in error. > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

RE: Favorites (Re: UUNET peering policy)
by Roeland Meyer 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

To top it all off, it is not all that clear that AboveNet has no retail transit feeds. I personally know of a few ISPs using AboveNet facilities. They re-sell Covad DSL and bring the Covad feed into their AboveNet cage, they re-route it up from there. Of course, they are also doing this with ELI. The thing is that they use the AboveNet internet backbone and the Covad telco backbone, in an AboveNet cage, to refer to the specific example. AboveNet is not in the position to know, or care, they just sell the cage and the internet backbone. Since Covad is also in SJC, and they only sell telco backbone, they don't care either. The titular ISP, works the margins (as always). > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:37 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Favorites (Re: UUNET peering policy) > > > > On Sun, 14 January 2001, Paul Vixie wrote: > > sean(a)donelan.com (Sean Donelan) writes: > > > If you look at Abovenet's traffic graphs, you'll notice > Abovenet has a wide > > > variety of traffic balances with different providers. > Some in Abovenet's > > > favor (such as 3:1 with Sprint, 5:1 with Teleglobe) and > some in the other > > > provider's favor (such as 1:3 with Exodus). ... > > > > "Favor"? What, precisely, connotes "favor" in this regard? > Sending more, or > > receiving more? And: why? > > Which side of the debate do you want to take? > > > The traditional arguement is a network composed mostly of a > few large data > centers, with lots of servers sending traffic is getting a > "free ride" on > the network which built out nationwide and has POPs in every LATA. > > UUNET deserves a return on its investment on all those > wholesale dialup > POPs and circuits to underserved rural areas. Abovenet is just cream > skimming in a few large metro areas, while UUNET does the hard work of > carrying that extra traffic imbalance. Abovenet selling > "cheap" bandwidth > because it doesn't have the cost of delievering the traffic that UUNET > has to pay. > > The opposite side is Abovenet has invested a lot into its > sites and MFN > into its networks. It just choose to do it in a different > way than UUNET. > Its more expensive to lay fiber in metro areas than rural > areas. It costs > a lot of money to operate the centers. Whether the traffic > is being paid > by the millions of $19.95 dialup users on UUNET's wholesale ports or > by the hundreds of hosters in Abovenet's sites, the traffic is paid. > > >

1 0

Access Numbers
by John Paul Martin 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Our ISP is exanding into other areas. Where can I find a list of what numbers certain cities can dial locally? We want to get the best location and phone number for the buck. Thanks in advance, John Paul Martin

4 3

RE: Access Numbers [OT]
by Scott Madley 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

It's a bit pricey, but the LERG by Telecordia is the best implementation of rate center homing. It pretty much has everything you need to use in a carrier-class enviroment. However, unless you have CLEC status you are tied into the local ILEC's rate centers. http://www.bellatlantic.net/cgi-bin/npa-nxx/ Show's look exchanges for the Bell Atlantic area... I'm sure other RBOC's have these as well. Cheers -Scott -----Original Message----- From: Mark Radabaugh [mailto:mark@amplex.net] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:42 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Access Numbers [OT] Not that this is of much use to most of you but for Ohio it is published on the PUCO web page at http://www.puc.state.oh.us/pucogis/easmaps/EASMAP.HTM Very useful for figuring out where to put terminal servers. You might try your own state Public Utility Commission - at least in Ohio the local calling area is a regulated function. Mark Radabaugh VP, Amplex (419)833-3635 mark(a)amplex.net > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > deeann mikula > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 7:53 AM > To: John Paul Martin > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Access Numbers [OT] > > > > On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, John Paul Martin wrote: > > > > > Our ISP is exanding into other areas. Where can I find a list of what > > numbers certain cities can dial locally? We want to get the best location > > and phone number for the buck. > > i don't see that this is nanog material, unless we want to use it as a > springboard to begin complaining about a certain incumbent carrier... > > however, the answers are easy: > > *your local phone book should have pages in the front which should > list local calling areas, usually with a table of exchanges. > > *call your local operator by dialing zero, and ask > them if, with your calling plan, you can call NXX-1 from NXX-2 > toll-free. if s/he says s/he can't tell you that information, ask to > talk to their supervisor, because, as the entity billing you for such > calls, they should be able to tell you what their billing structure > is. (this is the most reliable method.) > > if anyone knows of a centralized listing, i'd love to see it. this is > something that i deal with everyday, and it can be messy. generally > we get a table of "this NXX can be dialed toll free from these NXXs" > from whomever is providing our virtual NXXs. however, those lists > have proved incorrect in the past, and we INSIST that our phone staff > tell our customer to check their access number using the above > methods. > > deeann m.m. mikula > > network administrator > telerama internet -- http://www.telerama.com > abuse@telerama.com/spam@telerama.com > 1.877.688.3200x501 > > >

1 0

Re: UUNET peering policy
by Sean Donelan 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

On Mon, 15 January 2001, Steve Meuse wrote: > Then you have not made the same investment in infrastructure, and therefore > are not a *peer*. That sounds like the same argument AT&T made when MCI tried to connect to its network. AT&T currently has a market capitalization of $91 Billion MCI/Worldcom currently has a market capitalization of $63 Billion Sprint currently has a market capitalization of $25 Billion Genuity currently has a market capitalization of $5 Billion Yep, I would say Genuity is not a peer of either AT&T, Sprint or Worldcom. Interconnection should be based on technical performance standards, not on the size of your balance sheet. I understand writing a performance based requirement is much harder than a prescriptive based requirement. Prescriptive: You will use OC-12 circuits. Performance: You will be able to carry 150 Mbps of sustained traffic for 5 minutes with less than 1% packet loss. If you want to use OC-12 circuits, great. If you want to use ATM, great. If you want to use quantum transfer, great. What I object to is the requirement to make the "same" investment, i.e. make the same mistakes. Perhaps I wanted to make my investment in circuits between the US and South America, so I have 150Mbps to Rio. This is essentially the argument that Telstra has been making to the UN and ITU. Telstra makes very large investments in its part of the world, some might argue even more than Worldcom invests. But because Telstra doesn't sell service in Virginia, none of that investment "counts."

1 0

Re: UUNET peering policy
by Sean Donelan 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

In the past, some providers have specified peering requirements such as "must use a Cisco 7000 with SSP". If you are concerned about congestion, you should specify a performance requirement covering congestion, not some internal architecture design of the other network. How the other network chooses to solve the congestion problem should be up to them. By saying you should treat the other provider as a black box I mean you should be able to tell if the other provider is meeting or not meeting their performance requirements with examination of how much they are paying for their circuits, what type of routers they are using, or how they design their internal network. On Sun, 14 January 2001, Paul Vixie wrote: > > ... I think interconnection agreements should be based on the point of > > interconnection. When you delve too much in how the internals of other > > providers' networks work, I think you are always going to run into > > problems. I think it is best to view other provider's networks as a > > black box. > > I don't agree. Peering is a business relationship transcending locations. > The best peering agreements I know of (e.g., mine) specify growth terms so > that traffic won't eventually encounter congestion while trying to get from > one to the other or back again. Some forms of growth involve additional > peering locations, and some do not. A peering agreement which was based on > the point of interconnection would be far less useful in avoiding congestion.

1 0

Re: UUNET peering policy
by Sean Donelan 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

On Sun, 14 January 2001, Paul Vixie wrote: > > ... The imbalance issue has come up a few more times with other > > providers such as PSI, Abovenet and others. > > To the best of my knowledge, AboveNet has never insisted on any particular > traffic balance with any of our peers. Send to us 10:1, 1:10, 1:1, whatever. > Any traffic coming or going over a peering connection is to or from one of > AboveNet's customers, which means we're paid (by that customer) to deliver it. > (Any other policy amounts to wanting to be paid twice for the same packet.) There are always two sides to any peering exchange. Abovenet may not insist on any particular traffic balance, but their peers may. So peering requirements may affect a provider because it is on the insister side or the insistee side. Abovenet is a nice example of this, simply because they are one of the few providers still publishing traffic statistics. (This is a good thing). If you look at Abovenet's traffic graphs, you'll notice Abovenet has a wide variety of traffic balances with different providers. Some in Abovenet's favor (such as 3:1 with Sprint, 5:1 with Teleglobe) and some in the other provider's favor (such as 1:3 with Exodus). And a whole bunch of providers somewhere in between. UUNET isn't listed, so I don't know what that traffic balance looks like. It will be interesting to see what happens in 12 months when UUNET retroactively applies their policy to existing private interconnections. What if you are a web hosting company with data centers in a few large cities (chi, dal, la, nyc, sf) and don't meet UUNET's requirement to be located in 15 US states. What if you are a major Canadian provider with POPs in every province from coast to coast, but only a few locations across the border in the USA. What if you are a major South American or African provider covering those entire continents, but with little presence in UUNET's strongholds of US, Europe and Asia. One problem with all these peering policies is different providers have different strengths. I think interconnection agreements should be based on the point of interconnection. When you delve too much in how the internals of other providers' networks work, I think you are always going to run into problems. I think it is best to view other provider's networks as a black box.

2 1

RE: UUNET peering policy
by Gregory Soo 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Mediaspeak: Worldcom's Exclusive Peering Club Posts Rules http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2674325,00.html By Max Smetannikov, Interactive Week, January 14 2001 8:19 PM ET ...The result will likely be a wave of consolidations among smaller access providers and a codified first and second class of data carriage, industry experts said... Interview: Vinton Cerf On Private Peering http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2673857,00.html By Max Smettanikov, Interactive Week, January 15 2001 7:43 AM ET ...So I hope that when people look at this, they will understand that, especially in the case of private peering, when two parties have to build the physical capacity to link together, as opposed to public peering, when you have capacity going to a public NAP or MAE or what have you, it is even more clear evidence of cost associated with it. So it helps people understand the real framework in which Internet connectivity works... -----Original Message----- From: smd(a)clock.org [mailto:smd@clock.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:17 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu; vixie(a)mfnx.net Subject: Re: UUNET peering policy Vixie writes: | Peering is a business relationship transcending locations. This is beautifully put, and I couldn't agree more. Each party sells the other connectivity of essentially unlimited bandwidth over time, but limited by scope. The prices for this service and associated committments to one another are agreed to be so close that actually exchanging money is unworthwhile. Sean.

1 0