May 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: HR 1542
by Roeland Meyer 07 May '01

07 May '01

> From: Charles Sprickman [mailto:spork@inch.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 2:42 PM > > Adelphia is not a regulated public utility, that's the difference. Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" agreements, with many municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a regulated monopoly. Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets.

4 3

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 07 May '01

07 May '01

A similar tactic was also used by PSI about 9 months ago. The evalutaion of the success of their maneuver is left as an exercise for the reader and the bankruptcy court judges. Owen > > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:37:10AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > albert(a)waller.net (Albert Meyer) writes: > > > > > Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to > > > find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the > > > playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back > > > then, I doubt that CW can now. ... > > > > I am completely fascinated by your assessment (that UUNet didn't pull it off). > > It is rare, but I agree with Paul here :) > > Unet is, for example, one of the few (if not the only) ISP in The > Netherlands that charges for *peering* (no, not transit, just peering). > > More and more clued people I know are avoiding UUnet because they > don't peer with the small but quickly growing ISPs. Most UUnet > customers are getting worse and worse connectivity as other ISPs stop > peering with UUnet, because UUnet is becoming less and less important. > A nice downward spiral. > > Greetz, Peter. > >

1 0

[Fwd: Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]]
by Steve Sobol 07 May '01

07 May '01

woops, this was supposed to go to the list. -------- Original Message -------- From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net> Subject: Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman(a)civicnet.org> CC: sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net Miles Fidelman wrote: > Except that most of today's cable systems were built while municipalities > could, and did, grant exclusive franchises. Overbuilding an incumbant > cable operator is as expensive and risky as becoming a CLEC - probably the > reason that neither CLECs nor cable overbuilders are showing much > commercial success. Before being subsumed by SBC and forced to divest Americast, their cable-TV service, Ameritech did it. They reached a grand total of two Cleveland suburbs with the service. Maybe three. -- Tired of Earthlink? Get JustTheNet! Nationwide Dialup, ISDN, DSL, ATM, Frame Relay, T-1, T-3, and more. EARTHLINK AMNESTY PROGRAM: Buy a year, get two months free More info coming soon to http://JustThe.net, or e-mail me!

2 1

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 07 May '01

07 May '01

> Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" agreements, with many > municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a regulated monopoly. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ municipalities > Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets. Roland, about which country are you holding this discussion? I am located in the US and thought you were talking about the US. If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements? Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video. Don't get me wrong, I am *very* much in favor of open access, have a good business selling IP over cable plant and would love to do it over Adlephia/TWAOL/AT&T plant, I just hate to see yet another bit 'o BS propagated. BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more arguably a public resource. good luck, fletcher

3 2

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by Richard A. Steenbergen 07 May '01

07 May '01

On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote: > > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > Not so fast. While each of his customers is more inconvenienced > > than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. The net inconvenience > > (total number of people inconvenienced multiplied by the average > > inconvenience to each) might be nearly the same on both sides. As an > > added bonus, he has someone else to blame. > > That depends. Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be transit > free... so there isn't really a hole created. Sure, the smaller guy > is going to be paying more on transit rather than peering, but C&W > customers probably won't notice a thing, other than some relief on the > congested pipes to the public peering points. The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got for free. Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant reduction in congestion then there must have been a significant amount of traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War (http://www.pimpwar.com) :P -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

7 6

Looking for BGP resource utilization information...
by Thomas Gainer 07 May '01

07 May '01

Does anyone know of any good papers that explain memory resource utilization during the BGP table construction. TIA, Thomas Gainer Post Note: Yes, I have read the RFC. I am looking for additional resources.

1 0

HR 1542
by Joseph T. Klein 06 May '01

06 May '01

The ads on TV prompted me to look at this. In Section 4 ... `(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (c) and (d), the Commission shall not require an incumbent local exchange carrier to-- `(A) provide unbundled access to any network elements used in the provision of any high speed data service, other than those network elements described in section 51.319 of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 51.319), as in effect on January 1, 1999; or `(B) offer for resale at wholesale rates any high speed data service. `(2) AUTHORITY TO REDUCE ELEMENTS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENT- Paragraph (1)(A) shall not prohibit the Commission from modifying the regulation referred to in that paragraph to reduce the number of network elements subject to the unbundling requirement, or to forbear from enforcing any portion of that regulation in accordance with the Commission's authority under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, notwithstanding any limitation on that authority in section 10 of this Act.'. Hmmm .... I don't think this improves competition. -- Joseph T. Klein +1 414 915 7489 Senior Network Engineer jtk(a)titania.net Adelphia Business Solutions joseph.klein(a)adelphiacom.com "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..." -- John W. Stewart III

7 10

Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by Kyle C. Bacon 05 May '01

05 May '01

Anyone else receive a "de-peering" letter from Cable & Wireless recently? It even included a friendly "a sales representative from C&W will be contacting you to offer alternative services to access 3561." We peered with MCI prior to the spin off as well as the original C&W network since 1997. Has C&W gotten so large and arrogant that they think they can de-peer with another transit free network and it won't hurt them? Who gets hurt more if a hole is created due to de-peering? The two networks in the dispute or the reputation of the Internet as an unstable network held together with loose agreements that seem to be revisited annually and always risk getting ripped apart by revenue driven management? Looks like it is time for another chapter in the "peering disputes" NANOG archive book. K -- | Kyle C. Bacon | http://www.fnsi.net | Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. | Executive Vice President & COO

4 3

Provider Experiences
by Grace, Terry 05 May '01

05 May '01

This is my first post to the list so please be gentle. :) If this is an inappropriate forum for this question, pointers to a more appropriate resource would be appreciated. My company is a Canada's largest daily newspaper in Toronto, ON, CA and currently has multihomed T3's to UUNet and PSI. Due to PSI's financial status, management has decreed we develop a contigency plan that would involve replacing PSI. Currently, the majority of our traffic is local (southern Ontario) with 70% of our visitors using dialup. We provide internet services (bandwidth, hosting, security, etc) for a number of our sister papers as well. Can anyone offer advice with regards to an alternative provider? We have short listed AT&T and Sprint who are offering burstable services on OC3 and DS3, respectively. If anyone is currently running a multihomed config with UUNet and either AT&T or Sprint, your experiences (good or bad) would be appreciated. TIA for any advice. Get to know us http://www.thestar.com - Canada's largest daily newspaper online http://www.toronto.com - All you need to know about T.O. http://www.workopolis.com - Canadas biggest job site http://www.torontostartv.com - Webcasting & Production http://www.newinhomes.com - Ontarios Largest New Home & Condo Website http://www.waymoresports.com - Canada's most comprehensive sports site

1 0

OT - Deregulation of Data Networks
by Scott Madley 05 May '01

05 May '01

Just wondering if anyone else had read up on the "Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001". Haven't seen much news being made about this particular bill, figured I'd throw it out to the collective opinion of NANOG (since the desire is to allow RBOC's to offer InterLata data services). Cheers -Scott http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.1542:

4 3