- Test - lists.nanog.org

eDNS - Temporary Freeze
by Jim Fleming 03 May '97

03 May '97

Because of the enormous amount of interest in eDNS and the rapid growth of Registration Authorities (RAs) and TLD Registries under the eDNS plan, a temporary Freeze has been placed on the eDNS Root Zone [1]. This Freeze should allow all of the major Root Name Server Confederations to come to a round table consensus with "dot" clearly in the center of the table, out of reach of everyone's arms, military or otherwise. The major Root Name Server Confederations at this point in time are: AlterNIC - ?? Servers eDNS - 5 Servers (FROZEN) InterNIC - 9 Legacy Servers name.space - 12 Servers NSI/ISI - 4 Servers Everyone, especially ISPs and NANOG members, should encourage the owner/operators of the Root Name Servers in the above Confederations to represent them at these historic round table discussions which will be largely held in the open environment of the Internet and in traditional Internet forums. Think global and act local... =============== The consensus needed covers... 1. What are the confederations common guidelines on name syntax ? - One letter TLDs ? - Two letter TLDs ? - Dashes ? - Plurals ? 2. How will the confederations be "synced" ? (i.e. How will they exchange info on which TLDs they support ?) 3. Once a Confederation agrees to recogize a TLD will all Confederations agree to use the same TLD Name Server referrral NS Resource Records ? =============== I think that we should also add that there are CURRENTLY five parties at the Confederation Round Table. (AlterNIC, eDNS, InterNIC, name.space, NSI/ISI) There are clearly more Confederations coming. Consensus on the above basic issues is needed before the Root Name Server Confederation round table grows larger. [1] =========================================== ---------- From: edns-root@MCS.Net[SMTP:edns-root@MCS.Net] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 1997 11:14 AM To: edns-operators(a)MCS.Net Cc: edns-discuss(a)MCS.Net; newdom(a)ar.com Subject: Violations of Charter Over the last couple of weeks, eDNS has been grappling with apparent unfair practices with regards to TLD allocation and Registration Authority (RA) supervision. In an attempt to fairly address these issues, a Root Server Council (RSC) was formed for the sole purpose of interpreting the existing eDNS Charter. On Wednesday, the RSC issued a list of RAs and TLDs that appeared to be deficient in adhering to the letter and spirit of the Charter. Since that time, one RA has challanged the basis for this summary. Since these are difficult decisions and it is often hard to decide where to draw the line, the RSC felt that it would be better to decide these issues using a substantial public comment process from all Internet stakeholders, not just the RSC or other parties involved in eDNS. For these reasons, the RSC today has decided the following: - As of today, the RSC will place a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any new TLDs, RAs, or Registries. The only activity that will be approved are owner submitted Deletes, and Modifies required for system integretity. - The difficult questions facing the RSC will be brought before the entire Internet community for public review. Upon consensus, the questionable RAs and TLDs will either be deleted, modified, or accepted. - This process is to begin with Indusrty stakeholders at the upcoming Interop Conference in Las Vegas. The RSC also plans to request a meeting with the U.S. Government on this topic, as well as seek input from Internet and International organizations and Governments. Additional comments will be released before the upcoming Interop BOF (Birds of a Feather) Meeting schedule for Tuesday, May 6th at 8:00 p.m. The entire Internet community is invited to participate in this public comment process to help shape the future direction of eDNS. RSC. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com ===============================================

1 0

Peering (and other petty bickering)
by Sean Donelan 03 May '97

03 May '97

>Look up ''peer'' in a dictionary, in this context it means something >like ''networks of equal size''. I think you have cause and effect reversed. A peer is someone you treat as an equal. In fact, in the original meaning of "Peer," the Peers of the Realm (Barons, Lords, etc) were often extremly inequal in terms of property and power. To end a the petty bickering that went on between various fiefdoms, the soverign conferred peerages. In the IP world, "peers" can also be of very different sizes. Whether you are a supercomputer or a pc, in the IP world they treat each other as peers (equals). They aren't peers because they are equal size. >The internet is moving towards a scenario with a handfull global >players that will be ''peers'' everyone else will become a customer. Have the telco's really won the war? Another meaning for "Peer" is the Noble class that ruled over the lower classes. Do we really want the soverign to step in and declare who is a peer and who isn't? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Re: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by William Allen Simpson 03 May '97

03 May '97

> From: "Bownes, Robert M. (EXCH)" <RMBOWNES(a)intermedia.com> > What I would like to do is to connect to, for example, Sprint *just to > get to folks who buy from Sprint*, not to transit through them to get > to a NAP someplace. Logically, this should be available (and we make > such arrangements available) at a lower cost than transit. At the extreme > low end, it is a no-cost relationship at exchange points called peering. I found this to be a nice recapitulation of what "peering" means. Each peer pays the cost for seeing the other, not for carrying traffic to someone else they can see ("transit"). > How can we combat this? By building better interconnectivity amongst > ourselves. Local exchanges help to offload traffic that we would > otherwise hand off to major NSPs. We are actively campaigning to build > exchanges in any city we can for ISPs to exchange traffic, removing > it from the NSP backbone. > This is admirable. Is there a place where this effort is coordinated? WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements
by Adam Waters 03 May '97

03 May '97

Currently we peer with UUNet across Mae-West and have for over two years. We have been trying to extend this peering to the many other NAP's where we have DS3 connectivity for over 10 months now, as sound network design would indicate, but these efforts have been repeatedly rejected by UUNet. Recently, we also recieved the "from letter" telling us our peering would be shut off in June. We have so far declined to sign the NDA papers with UUNet regarding this. We are seeking a solution to the the problem without entering into a dead-end NDA that prevents us from actually doing so. I encourage others who are in the same boat to contact us to exchange thoughts on the matter. Best Regards, Adam Waters

2 1

CAIS stands up to UUNET! (fwd)
by Charles F. Crizer Jr. 03 May '97

03 May '97

Well, just as I was about to give CAIS the heave-ho, I find that CAIS is one of the first companies to tell UUNET to shove-it. See: http://www.prnewswire.com:80/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/oracle/dbtm… (The above URL is one line.) And http://www.clark.net/pub/rbenn/debate.html This is cool. CAIS, has my complete support! GIVE 'EM HELL GUYS!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles F. Crizer Jr. KF4MNE Senior Systems Engineer ccrizer(a)dyncon.net Certified Novell Administrator http://www.cais.com/dyncon -------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1997 Charles F. Crizer Jr. All Rights Reserved.

2 1

RE: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Dave Van Allen 03 May '97

03 May '97

Well said! Gee, you mean that this *is* really a business?? Best regards, David Van Allen - You Tools Corporation / FASTNET(tm) dave(a)fast.net (610) 289-1100 http://www.fast.net FASTNET - PA/NJ/DE Internet Solutions >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Balbach [SMTP:stephen@clark.net] >Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 6:43 AM >To: Gordon Cook >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu; inet-access(a)earth.com; dave(a)oldcolo.com >Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging >under non-disclosure? > > >> First it was AGIS (but who cares about AGIS?). Now UUNET. Tomorrow who? >> MCI? As UUNET and others of the big five move to consolidate their >> markets.......... let UUNET put the smaller national backbones against the >> wall and whom do the rest of ISP's have to rely on? Those ISPs who did >> not get hit in UUNET's first round of cuts. Will you get it in the neck in >> the second or the third round? > >The only thing UUNET is cutting is Internet trees, and there are some who >are protesting by hugging them. Clear out the chaff for next seasons >crops. > >Buying connectivity from an ISP who peers with UUNET, or buying direct >from UUNET, is a lot cheaper then building a national DS-3/OC-3 backbone >and trying to be default free - this is not about UUNET cuting throats, >it's about large and small ISP's examining thier business model. > > >.stb >

3 2

Re: UUNET: Content vs. CIDR
by Matthew James Gering 03 May '97

03 May '97

> Theoretical question: What if ISP-X had only one dedicated connection > behind it, and subsequently was 1/100,000 the size of NSP-Y. ISP-X's > only connection was a single content provider: Yahoo. > > How do we resolve the settlement issues in this model? Why should > the ISP-X pay NSP-Y to deliver valuable content to its consumers > (dialup and dedicated)? At the network level, Content Providers bear the cost of providing content on the Internet. They must find another way to recoup this cost, and/or pass it on to the consumers of that content. This should *NOT*, and never be a networking issue. > As diagrammed (with Internet / CableTV models referenced) The CableTV model does not apply at all to the Internet, it is entirely different technology. CableTV you have finite bandwidth, which is broadcast. CableCo must choose what content to carry, and users get all that content. In this essence the CableCo is the content reseller. The Internet is not broadcast, ISP's are not content resellers, they provide network access, the user can choose the content, and can establish a relationship directly with the content provider. Routing IP packets are all NSP's should be concerned with, and insuring the cost of routing those packets is recovered -- what is contained within them, and the relationships between the two end nodes is irrelevant (excepting the AUP). Matt

1 0

Re: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by Matthew James Gering 03 May '97

03 May '97

I agree that NSP's should separate cost of Peering from cost of Transit. On the other hand, you are also paying for the size of the Pipe. Only peering is going to reduce the size requirement, and reduce your cost. Matt > But I am still paying Sprint for transit, something I am philosophically > opposed to. Yes, the traffic is less, but why should I pay for transit, > not use it, and make my life more complex, as you point out? > > Bob

1 0

Re: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by Matthew James Gering 03 May '97

03 May '97

MSN does not peer with UUNet, the pay UUNET for transit, and also contract out the dialup to UUNet -- which is a pretty penney from what I heard. BTW, what happened to Microsoft's 8% stake of UUNet when UUNet got acquired by MFS? Matt > A big problem here is the gag clause. This means that special deals will > be cut for the big companies like IBM and MSN and others.

1 0

RE: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by Bownes, Robert M. (EXCH) 03 May '97

03 May '97

On the contrary, as a decent sized, (not huge, not big, but bigger than average, and with a domestic and international footprint), ISP, we would like to be able to get a connection to UUNet or the other major carriers simply to get to *their* networks and those that pay to connect to them. I can get to many of the smaller networks through peering relationships we maintain at NAPs and other avenues as well as transit agreements with two major carriers. We bring both alot of traffic to the table that would like to terminate on those carriers networks and connect to a large number of sites with content (the States of Florida & New York amongst them). I am willing to pay to connect to a major carrier, but I don't want to buy transit. No one I know of, save us, currently offers this. What I would like to do is to connect to, for example, Sprint *just to get to folks who buy from Sprint*, not to transit through them to get to a NAP someplace. Logically, this should be available (and we make such arrangements available) at a lower cost than transit. At the extreme low end, it is a no-cost relationship at exchange points called peering. You suggestion of settlements is not new, in fact, it was a great fear about 18 months ago or so. Perhaps this is it re-occurring in the cyclic nature of the Net. Should someone want to charge me by the packet, I would make that same arrangement with them. As a telephone company, we make those reciprocal agreements all the time (and make money at it). Most of the RBOCs, however, prefer a no fee interchange since the traffic is imbalanced and they are on the loosing end. Should settlements look to be the model, I would build my network differently, putting all inbound traffic on settlement based connections and outbound traffic on non-settlement connections. Easy to do. How can we combat this? By building better interconnectivity amongst ourselves. Local exchanges help to offload traffic that we would otherwise hand off to major NSPs. We are actively campaigning to build exchanges in any city we can for ISPs to exchange traffic, removing it from the NSP backbone. Bob >---------- >From: James Saker[SMTP:jsaker@intellitek.com] >Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 4:09 PM >To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >Subject: UUNET settlement - A call to arms? > > >In reviewing the service literature from UUNET, I can find no reference to >"partial Internet service," "not really the whole Internet, but rather what >we could offer today based on our peering arrangements, which may vary from >day to day, and we are under no obligation to tell our customers what we can >and cannot offer," etc.. I can't find the web server on UUNET that provides >bulletins about what networks are unavailable today, nor does there appear to >be a major-domo list, so when my customers complain about not connecting to >our network from anywhere in North America (through various ISPs), I can >verify that their ISP hasn't paid UUNET for peering, etc.. > >I view such partial service as unacceptable from an NSP, especially when I >can obtain full service from other NSPs for the same or less money. Unless >I'm behind the times, MCI, BBN, PSI and others still have rather complete >networks. > > >

5 4