November 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: a question about the economics of peering
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

> where if you peer with the network that has > the congestion and there is no money changing hands there is not > a lot of incentive for them to fix it just for you. I don't see how paying someone to transit to their congested peers network is better than just peering with the congested network yourself. brandon

3 2

RE: a question about the economics of peering
by Hitesh Patel 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

IMHO, you have to have 'best blend' of direct peering at peering points as also having dual homing to upstream - ofcourse depending on size. 1.it help keeping resiliency and 2.provide optimal route to your customer - No matter how much fine-tuning you do in attempt to provide optimal path to your customer, in absence of direct peering, some of your customer have to bounce back accross atlantic to reach to network within their own country - not a good 'economics' for your customer and so to you. Also where there is metered base charging by your upstream provider, you end-up paying less to the extent traffic is carried by your peers and vic-e-versa or 3. go for private peerign connection. No congestion :O) The cost of peering has to be viewed from the perspective of complementary to each other and resiliency point of view rather than in absolute 'economics' term. As for congestion, you can't miss it- no matter which alone option you opt ;O) Best Regards Hitesh Patel -----Original Message----- From: brandon(a)rd.bbc.co.uk [mailto:brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk] Sent: 30 November 2001 17:48 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: a question about the economics of peering > where if you peer with the network that has > the congestion and there is no money changing hands there is not > a lot of incentive for them to fix it just for you. I don't see how paying someone to transit to their congested peers network is better than just peering with the congested network yourself. brandon

1 0

RE: a question about the economics of peering
by Lane Patterson 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

As Bill Woodcock asserts, there is no question that peering at exchanges is driven by economics more than other advantages such as path minimization or performance maximization, whether you are peering amongst Tier1's or are a Tier2/other minimizing your transit $$$ by maximizing your peering traffic %. But the drop in transit pricing, and things like burstible billing, have definitely changed the "margin" in this calculation. So now we see folks going to exchanges/neutral colocation for much more than just peering arguments, but a combo of: -public peering -private peering -access to lots of low-cost transit providers -access to lots of low-cost circuit providers--including ethernet "local loops" -ease of switching bandwidth suppliers -just need a good facility to put a POP -sell services As for IXen in Europe versus US, the history (having suffered thru this at MAE-East) is that FDDI-based US exchanges reached congestion first, and the largest traffic pushers were forced to go the private peering route. So legacy exchanges then entered a rather spotty period of faltering critical mass, competing exchanges, diverging technology choices (ATM versus Ether) and a mixed private/public interconnection model. Today, congestion is not a problem at US IXen, but having critical public peering mass in all the major geographic peering areas is. Whereas European public exchanges never experienced congestion, since by time traffic growth hit, there were egress-buffered GigE switches available. Thus they continued merrily along toward critical mass, and traffic at exchanges like LINX (surpassed 13 Gbps this week!), AMS-IX, and even Japanese exchanges have surpassed legacy US exchanges. However, new entrants to RIPE and APNIC IX business may certainly pull at the peering concensus in these areas. Cheers, -Lane > -----Original Message----- > From: Giles Heron [mailto:giles@packetexchange.net] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 9:38 AM > To: David R. Dick > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: a question about the economics of peering > > > > "David R. Dick" wrote: > > > > > > > > Today, I was approached by > *unnamed-ethernet-extension-company*. They > > > extend ethernets between several US and UK peering exchanges. > > > > > > While speaking with them today, thier engineer and I got > into a little bit > > > of a disagreement as to why people peer with each other > at public exchange > > > points. My belief is that generally speaking, networks > meet at public > > > exchange points (such as MAE-*, LINX, AMSIX, AADS, etc) > is to exchange > > > traffic with each other more economically (read: save money). > > > > > > His belief is that people will pay a premium to get to an > exchange point, > > > because it's worth paying a premium to have 'less hops' > between two > > > networks. > > > > The problem with this idea is that public exchange points need > > to be *avoided* when they get too congested. People may start > > out trying to minimize number of hops, but I think they eventually > > try to minimize total latency. > > but what if the *unnamed-ethernet-extension-company* wasn't providing > access to public exchange points, but was rather enabling uncongested > private peering over its network? That way latency and hop count are > both mimimised. > > BTW, public IXen in Europe don't tend to be congested. > Whether this is > the result of better management, or of lower traffic volumes, > than IXen > in the US I'm not sure... > > Giles > > > > > > > Essentially, he said that paying more for peering that > for transit is > > > typical, and to be expected, and most people accept this. > > > > > > Whats the common opinion on this? > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ================================================================= > Giles Heron Principal Network Architect PacketExchange Ltd. > ph: +44 7880 506185 "if you build it they will yawn" > ================================================================= >

1 0

cox@home "external statement"
by Todd Suiter 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

Got this from a buddy who works at cox in Omaha. "We are still unsure about what this means to our service. We received an update from our folks in the courtroom that E@H asked the judge not to turn us off, but instead reject our MDAs and they will provide interim service for as yet undisclosed terms. The judge agreed. We still believe that it is highly unlikely that we will go dark - we expect E@H to come forward with a proposal today."

1 0

Re: @Home ordered to shutdown at Midnight
by Sean Donelan 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

Dueling newswires Reuters story http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/011130/business_tech_exciteathome_dc_1.html Court Orders ExciteAtHome to Shut Service SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal bankruptcy judge ordered Internet service provider ExciteAtHome Corp. (OTC BB:ATHMQ.OB - news) to shut its high-speed Internet service at midnight Friday, but said he was confident the company could quickly strike a new deal with cable companies to prevent service interruption for its some 4 million subscribers. Does Reuters know something CNet doesn't? On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Christopher Schulte wrote: > From http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-8031722.html : > > "But Carlson said that "flipping the switch and shutting off service" was > highly unlikely." > > Do you know something they don't? > > At 04:18 PM 11/30/2001 -0500, you wrote: > > > >Judge Thomas Carlson ordered Excite@Home to shutdown as of > >Midnight Eastern time, tonight Friday November 30 2001. > > > >Bondholders are free to negotiate a better offer before > >the shutdown, if they can, to maintain the service. > >

2 1

NANOG 24 CFP
by Susan Harris 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS * * NANOG 24 * * February 10-12, 2002 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) will hold its 24th meeting February 10-12, 2002, in Miami, Florida. The meeting will be hosted by Terremark Worldwide. Registration begins January 2. NANOG conferences provide a forum for the coordination and dissemination of technical information related to large-scale (i.e., national/international) Internet backbone networking technologies and operational practices. Meetings are held three times each year, and include two days of short presentations, plus afternoon/evening tutorial sessions. The meetings are informal, with an emphasis on relevance to current backbone engineering practices. NANOG conferences draw over 600 participants, mainly consisting of engineering staff from national service providers, and members of the research and education community. <p> The meeting will be held at the Hotel Inter-Continental Miami. For more information about NANOG meetings, schedules, and logistics, see: http://www.nanog.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS NANOG invites presentations on backbone engineering, coordination, and research topics. Presentations should highlight issues relating to technology already deployed or soon to be deployed in core Internet backbones and exchange points. Previous meetings have included presentations on: - Backbone traffic engineering - Inter-provider security and routing protocol authentication - Routing scalability in backbone infrastructures - Security issues for the Internet core - Routing policy specification and backbone router configuration - Building large-scale measurement infrastructure - Cooperative inter-provider caching - Alternatives to hot-potato routing - Recommendations on queue management and congestion avoidance - Experience with differentiated services - Inter-domain multicast deployment - Backbone network failure analysis Tutorials have covered topics such as: - BGP case studies - Tools and techniques for ISP security - External route selection - IP multicast technologies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW TO PRESENT Submit a detailed abstract or outline describing the presentation in email to nanog-support(a)nanog.org. The deadline for proposals is January 2, 2002. While the majority of speaking slots will be filled by January 2, a limited number of slots will be available after that date for topics that are exceptionally timely and important. Submissions will be reviewed by the NANOG Program Committee, and presenters will be notified of acceptance by January 16, 2002. NANOG also welcomes suggestions/recommendations for tutorials, panels and other presentation topics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: MPLS in metro access networks
by Quibell, Marc 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

I guess you answered your own question: "And I'm not sure what faster switching/routing has to do with MPLS:)" As far as CEF and such goes, I couldn't disagree with that (as I was not comparing MPLS to other optimized forwarding techniques), however, MPLS is not a vendor-proprietary forwarding mechanism, which means that I can deploy it worldwide, or state-wide, whatever the case may be, in my network and have the benefit of using only ONE protocol with MPLS-enabled/aware routers/switches. A definate plus over the other proprietary fast switching techniques you mentioned. Your last statement indicates "added services" have nothing to do with the the fast switching processing of MPLS, when in fact these services depend upon the faster delivery of the non-proprietary fast switching of MPLS. As quoted from the rfc: "This memo presents an approach for building core Virtual Private Network (VPN) services in a service provider's MPLS backbone. This approach uses Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) running in the backbone to provide premium services in addition to best effort services." Marc -----Original Message----- From: Michael Cohen [mailto:mcohen@thrupoint.net] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:20 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: MPLS in metro access networks I still have to disagree that MPLS results in faster switching/routing in modern service provider networks. Modern vendor caching mechanisms are just as fast if not faster than MPLS processing. With the small overhead of MPLS labels and LDP I highly doubt that you're getting any performance increase over Cisco's CEF or Juniper's FPC architecture. I also doubt that speed is a benefit that service providers consider when deciding whether or not they want to implement MPLS. Added services that run on top of MPLS like VPNs, traffic engineering, and fast rerouting capabilities (all mentioned in the original post) are more likely the benefits considered. Perhaps when label switching was first being marketed (Ipsilon and Cisco in 1996) there were some speed benefits but now I think it's the services that use MPLS that are the major benefit. -Michael Cohen -----Original Message----- From: Quibell, Marc [mailto:mquibell@icn.state.ia.us] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:59 AM To: 'mcohen(a)thrupoint.net'; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: RE: MPLS in metro access networks soooo...Label switching assigns labels to packet headers which results in less time and processing looking up routes, and instead relies upon a label index for forwarding decisions? Hence my statement "faster switching/routing and less processing":) Marc -----Original Message----- From: Michael Cohen [mailto:mcohen@thrupoint.net] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:56 AM To: Quibell, Marc Subject: RE: MPLS in metro access networks I hope so:) -----Original Message----- From: Quibell, Marc [mailto:mquibell@icn.state.ia.us] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:46 AM To: 'mcohen(a)thrupoint.net'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: MPLS in metro access networks Are we talking about Multiprotocol Label Switching? Marc -----Original Message----- From: Michael Cohen [mailto:mcohen@thrupoint.net] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:45 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: MPLS in metro access networks And I'm not sure what faster switching/routing has to do with MPLS:) I believe one of the ideas behind MPLS benefiting metro access networks is using MPLS to deliver layer 2 VPNs across an MPLS enabled core thus simulating leased lines for access clients...but I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. There seems to be some hype for Martini draft VPNs and large enterprise customers in metro areas. Cheers, -Michael Cohen -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Quibell, Marc Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:20 AM To: 'srihari varada'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: MPLS in metro access networks I would think faster switching/routing and less processing would be wanted in any mid-to-large sized network...I'm not sure what load balancing and fault restoration has to do with MPLS.... Marc -----Original Message----- From: srihari varada [mailto:varada@txc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:12 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: MPLS in metro access networks Hello: I have heard some stressing the role of MPLS in metro access networks. It is difficult for me to visualize the need for it in them while it is not so difficult to understand the utility (load balancing and fault restoration etc.) of it in the metro backbone networks. To characterize metro access networks in the context, the following is provided: -- aggregates traffic from residential (arriving via broadband access links such as xDSL, Cable) and business consumers (arriving via broadband access links such as xDSL and high speed links such as Ethernet or SONET) -- funnels aggregated traffic to metro backbone networks for destination hosts in the local metro region or remote regions across the internet regional and backbone networks. Majority of such access networks are SONET/ATM based (I didn't come across any case of Gig Ethernet. However, I do not preculde it). Thus, there are two questions: -- Are there known RBOCs/ILECs and CLECs entrenching MPLS in the said network scope? (I do not see many major ILECs in the un-official MPLS service providers list being circulated but it may mean little) -- If so, what motivates them to do so? Any analysis of the driving forces is appreciated. Regards, Srihari Varada

7 9

Re: a question about the economics of peering
by Bill Woodcock 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

Alex Rubenstein wrote: > Today, I was approached by *unnamed-ethernet-extension-company*. I take it this was PacketExchange? There are several other companies in, or entering, that market right now as well. Most of them haven't a clue about the economics of the field they're in, and will go down in flames as quickly as they can burn their first-round funding. > My belief is that generally speaking, networks meet at public > exchange points to exchange traffic with each other more > economically. Yes, you're correct. Specifically, one participates at exchanges that offer sufficiently attractive routes such that one's per-bit delivery cost is, on average, lowered as a consequence of participating at the exchange. That is, the total cost of participation in the exchange must be less than the cost of delivering the same number of bits via transit. That's why many of the most successful exchanges are also often the cheapest, with the fewest services... They exceed that price/performance threshold more easily than exchanges that feature expensive services. Um, that's something of a tautology, sorry, but I think you get my point. > His belief is that people will pay a premium to get to an exchange > point I hope he believes in Santa Claus too, else his company is going to encounter a rude shock when it tries to make a sale. > Essentially, he said that paying more for peering that for transit is > typical, and to be expected, and most people accept this. Nope. He's as wrong as can be. -Bill

1 0

Re: a question about the economics of peering
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

> BTW, public IXen in Europe don't tend to be congested. Whether this is > the result of better management, or of lower traffic volumes Possibly, they also tend to be member owned so people have a stake in making them work whereas a commercial IX may have other priorities We have virtually zero visibility into what's going on inside commercial IX compared to the data we see in member organisations - it's hard to hide stuff from the members Doesn't mean commercial is bad though brandon

1 0

Customers are demanding diversity a lot more
by Sean Donelan 30 Nov '01

30 Nov '01

Verizon spokesmen are quoted in the Wall Street Journal that nearly all voice and data service has been restored since September 11 attacks. Although the article also points out some customers are relying on CLEC services because Verizon hasn't restored their service. According to Verizon, about 8000 circuits are still nonfunctional. Verizon estimates it will spend about $1 billion on its recovery efforts. AT&T has released a video showing its employees response since September 11. According to an AT&T spokesmen, AT&T spent about $300 million to maintain its ability to recover a complete switching site. Genuity has rehomed the customers previously connected to its WTC pop. And now (only now?) has plans to connect its data centers through diverse POPs. It is also adding the ability to identify specific types of customers, such as government, hospitals, etc in case it needs to provide them service in an emergency. The voice network has had a "service restoration priority" program for a long time, until now ISP services were not covered by such a concept. Worldcom and Sprint are maintaining their "no comment" policy.

1 0