- Test - lists.nanog.org

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 07 Jun '01

07 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 07 Jun '01

07 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 07 Jun '01

07 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 07 Jun '01

07 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 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

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

9 10

RE: Hosting Failover Question
by Paul Froutan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

Ideally, I wouldn't find any kind of "session" to time out. Almost everyone is fine with short outages (few seconds) as long as their apps don't time out. While 5 seconds is great, I think you'll have a hard time getting there. You'll have to exchange tons of "hello" type packets which means you're flooding a lot of traffic. You can control it at ports, but it's still a pain. At 6/6/01, you wrote: >I am interested what I should design to. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Froutan [mailto:pfroutan@rackspace.com] >Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:23 PM >To: Nanog@Merit. Edu (E-mail) >Subject: Re: Hosting Failover Question > > > >What do you mean by "reasonable"? Do you mean what you can expect right >now at a hoster, or what you should aim for when designing a system? > >At 6/6/01, James DeMong wrote: > > > >I am looking for a Rule of Thumb on failover for hosting, mostly > >tcp(webserver), some udp (audio/video streaming) stuff. > >My thought is that 5 seconds to failover when a network > >element(switch/router/load balancer/FW) fails is reasonable. > > > >How many seconds is reasonable for fail over in such a situation? > > > >Thanks in advance. > >__ > >James DeMong > >Network Design Specialist > >TELUS Advanced Communications > >Phone: (403) 503-3718 > >Email: James.DeMong(a)telus.com > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Paul Froutan Email: pfroutan(a)rackspace.com >Rackspace Managed Hosting <http://www.rackspace.com>

1 0

RE: C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering
by Smith, Marcellus 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

In my opinion, the individual "peering coordinator" will have less and less control over Peering over time. So it doesn't matter how constant or flexible their views are. The outgoing costs considerations will begin to dictate more than any other factor what the "company's" views are on Peering. For example, working at a facilities based company would enable you to enjoy certain luxuries that a non-facilities based company would not. Some ISP's look at Peering and the costs associated with it (hardware and circuits) as a cost of doing business, but the beancounters want to see direct revenue tied to everything, of course. When the "peering coordinator" can't show direct revenue from Peering, whatever he or she thinks goes out the window, making their opinions or views, irrelevant to their company. And this is the mistake that companies will make. They don't realize the 3D effect of the economics, as any good "peering coordinator" will and they will make "Peering" decisions only based on the outgoing costs. ------------------------ Marcellus Smith Director - Internetworking Strategies Office 703-287-4224 Cell 703-395-4275 marcellus(a)aleron.com www.aleron.com -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:14 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering On Wed, 06 June 2001, shane wrote: > Looks like the peering is back up as of 21:28:00 EDT. Wow, less than a week. Not too bad as peering disputes go. If you'd like to re-read older PSI peering dispute A person from ANS: http://www.interesting-people.org/archive/0435.html A person from PSI: http://www.interesting-people.org/archive/0436.html I would be interested in hearing what folks who once worked as the "peering coordinator" for a large ISP, and later worked as a smaller ISP trying to negotiate from different sides of the table think. I believe every major ISP has turned over their peering staff at least once, and some multiple times. Do the views hold constant no matter where they are, or are they flexible depending whether they are currently working at the big ISP or at the startup ISP?

1 0

3GB month limit to telstra users
by k claffy 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

(did this hit nanog already, sorry if so) "The former national Telecommunications company in Australia, Telstra, announced changes to their flat-rate cable and ADSL Freedom plan iyesterday. The following email was sent to all users on the cable and ADSL residential plans -- restricting data download to three gigabytes per month with additional downloading attracting a hefty 35-cent fee per megabyte ($AU). Usage after that 3 gigabyte allowance is limited to the internal network if the customer does not choose to pay the fees for excess traffic." http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/06/136240&mode=thread

1 0