June 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Sprint NAP
by Alex Rubenstein 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

So, I am trying to find out whats going on with the SprintNAP; I'd heard that they were going to have an ATM platform, yada yada, but whatever. Anyone know anything about it? Who to contact? Pricing?

1 0

Re: And then there were two
by Ron Buchalski 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

>From: Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: And then there were two >Date: 5 Jun 2001 17:16:13 -0700 > > >If you accept the premise that "peer == equal" does that mean >in the end there will be only two ISPs each with exactly 50% >of the world's Internet because no one else will be an equal? Why can't you have more than two 'equals'? Couldn't you have three 'equals' or four 'equals'? It would be just as difficult to maintain three or four _exact_ divisions as it would be to maintain two. >I've never understood how the word "peer" mutated from its >technical definition arising from its use in the BGP protocol >to its use by marketing people. The keyword is 'marketing' people. Aren't they the ones who always twist and exploit technical terms? >As far as I can tell, EGP (Exterior Gateway Protocol) originally >used the term "neighbor." Berkeley used the berkelism "peer" in >their software and RFC 911 documenting their experience, and the >term stuck through EGP2, BGP1-4. > >If we still used the word "neighbor" would the phrase "Are you >a neighbor?" have a different ring than "Are you a peer?" You >can have lots of neighbors, even if you think you are superior >to all of them. You're thinking about this too much. The backhoes must be behaving today! ;-) -rb _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

3 3

Self Regulation (was Re: New peering criteria)
by smd＠clock.org 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

| I would imagine that such actions tend to irritate the hive of regulatory | officials. Self regulation would be one way to prevent such action. The answer is simple: have more lawyers than most jurisdictions have civil servants. q: what is a phone company? a: it's a law firm with a side-interest in telecommunications q: what do phone company facilities look like? a: boxes with no windows stuffed with lawyers and an antenna on top q: who has more employees? a standalone ISP or a phone company's legal branch's Human Resources department? a: that's not funny. see you in court. q: is it true that some phone companies' legal branches are revenue centres? a: oh yes. and don't forget that at least one IXC _literally_ sued itself into existence. Is there any serious and relevant regulatory authority which is going to intervene in a contractual dispute between parties which are NOT dominant in their industry? It seems to me that players like C&W face vigorous competition. Sean. PS - can you tell how much i hate it when vaguely technical people pose ex cathedra about vaguely legal & regulatory issues? - -- Sean Doran <smd(a)clock.org> >From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]: "mulch, noun. 1. a protective covering of half-rotten vegetable matter (cf legal department)"

3 2

Re: HTML-format postings
by Jim Shankland 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

Jonas Luster <jluster(a)d-fensive.com> writes: > It's not so much the people but the traffic. Top-Posting usually means = > =20 > Fullquote. Almost no top-poste I know bothers to shorten the content = > =20 > below his own $0.01. That said, let's just assume 10 top-posters with = > =20 > reasonably long texts in a row and you've got from 10 to 100 times more = > =20 [etc.] OK, off with your head, too, while we're at it :-)! Jim Shankland

1 0

Re: C&W Peering
by Sean Donelan 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

On Mon, 04 June 2001, "Moe Allen" wrote: > Affective this morning Cable & Wireless started de-peering with PSINET. > More when I receive a reply from: peering.admin(a)cwusa.com Since PSI still hosts one of the root servers (C.PSI.NET) C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, I hope C&W's customers understand the all ramifications of C&W's actions. Depending on the current state of the net, it may vary from a minor reduction in access to all possible servers to 1/13.

17 23

re:Small Exchanges
by William Charnock 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

This brings up an interesting question. I have several BPX ATM switches that I am not using for anything, and I had the bright idea that I would start up some AADS-like exchanges around the country if I could get enough interest. I pinged some of the Dallas area ISP's about the possibility of connecting (I still know some of the guys around here that haven't been gobbled up) and while some expressed interest in connecting, it didn't seem like enough of them were interested to warrant the effort. With the expansion of PAIX and Equinix (and others) into some of the other major markets, will metro exchanges become a thing of the past? Are there simply not enough medium-sized ISP's left in middle-tier markets to justify these types of exchanges? And are the bigger ISP's simply not interested in connecting to any of these metro exchanges? An even better question to this community is this: If I built it would you come? What markets would I need to locate these switches in to make it interesting? If I were to offer connection at cost +10-15% (for O+M) would that make it more interesting? By the way -- the ATM switches seem ideal for this to keep costs down (no collocation necessary), even though the marketplace seems to be moving to Ethernet exchanges. Does anyone have issues with ATM (other than the cell-tax) for this application? Thanks! -- William R. Charnock Director Core IP Tecnology Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 469-259-2260 (O) 972-523-2750 (C)

1 0

Negligent companies face DDOS liability
by Dan Hollis 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

http://www.hackerwhacker.com/showarticle.dyn?article=http://computerworld.c… I've been saying this for a long time. Sooner or later complacent/negligent/lazy/incompetent tier1's are going to be found liable for DDOS damages. I expect a flood of panicky RPF deployment as soon as the first lawsuits hit the courts. -Dan

2 1

Enron (was Re: C&W peering)
by Sean Donelan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

On Wed, 06 June 2001, Toby_Williams(a)enron.net wrote: > What I find most interesting about all these disputes is that none of the major > players appear to be even slightly interested in settled interconnection - like > they have in the telephony world. What I find interesting is the telephone world is now trying to end settlements, and move more to the Internet model. The end of reciprocal compensation, FCC forcing international settlements down, forcing access fees down, etc. > There was a paper I saw ages ago: > > http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/cai/farnon.html > > that discussed some of the economics behind peering. Though it's a bit > old now, many of it's arguments hold true (hence todays CW/PSI/MFN/UUNet > conundrums). It also just begins to explore the possiblities (and > difficulties) of billaterally settled peering. Actually I sent e-mail to Scott and Maria yesterday asking about their paper. If they felt it still held true, or if the passage of time altered their perception. I remember there was also an economist from Michigan who wrote several papers about settlements and the Internet. I seem to recall he recently (i.e. last year) spoke about the fact the Internet wasn't behaving as some predicted. Instead of writing papers why the Internet must adopt settlements, I believe some economists are now writing papers why the Internet is still working without them. Settlements seem to work best when you have geographic monopolies or dupolies (e.g. regional bell telephone companies, regional pipelines, regional electric grids, regional train companies). And instead of building out your own infrastructure into a competitors region, you split the market into semi-exclusive franchises. Settlements don't seem to work when you have lots of competitors in the same market (e.g. airport rent-a-car companies). You don't see Hertz and Avis doing settlements and sharing the same fleet of cars depending who rents more cars each day. If we get to the point there are only 2-3 major ISPs in each geographic region of the globe, I would expect we would see more settlements (e.g. UUNET pays Telstra to delivery traffic in Australia, while Telstra pays UUNET to delivery traffic in the USA) based on some imaginary metric that is less than the cost of either of them invading the other's marketing region. Much like the RBOCs have split up the USA into SBC, Verizon, Qwest and Bellsouth.

2 1

C&W Explination (fwd)
by Andy Dills 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

Interesting...can anybody confirm that ATT and UU were going to drop PSI as well? Or is this just C&W doing their best to spin? Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:46:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher X. Candreva <chris(a)westnet.com> Reply-To: list(a)inet-access.net To: list(a)inet-access.net Subject: C&W Explination According to my sales rep: PSI has been in violation of peering agreements with C&W, AT&T, and Worldcom for some time now, in his words "just dumping lots of traffic on to our networks". All three companies were slated to disconnect peering this weekend. However, only C&W had done so BEFORE the Chapter 11 filing. One they filed, the others were prevented from doing so. Since they never made any kind of anouncement, C&W ended up looking like idiots. Which, since they didn't make any announcement, I say they they actually are. >From my conversations, it's evident that the sales force had no idea about this until they started getting complaints, and from the conversation I just had, I do believe that they (or at least my rep) were argueing with management to have the peering restored. Not any kind of excuse, but I figure the guys who did right deserve credit. ========================================================== Chris Candreva -- chris(a)westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ - Recent archives of the list can be found at: http://mix.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/inet-access/ Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request(a)inet-access.net' to leave. Eat sushi frequently. inet(a)inet-access.net is the human contact address.

2 1

Internet Traffic Discovery?
by Craig A. Haney 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

didn't we all already know this? http://financial.washingtonpost.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=BW20… -craig

9 10