- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
by Peter Lothberg 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

> I would say that if transatlantic lines are mostly ordered and paid for by > European companies that you are probably correct. But part of the reason > is that European government run PTT's charge horrendously high rates for > international circuits. It's more expensive to install and operate a fiber in an ocean than along the railway-tracks. Regardless of tariffs, 4000 miles of transatlantic OC-48 is more expensive than 4000 miles of land-line OC-48. So, if both sides agrees on the 'benefit ratio' add the costs and divide the sum according to the ratio. -Peter (Sorry to repeat myself..)

1 0

Re: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP
by Ken Lam 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

At 07:36 PM 10/26/96 -0400, Avi Freedman wrote: >Of course, I was half-joking, but why only one Gigaswitch? Why not two, >for redundancy, as is implemented at Pennsauken? > >With a backup FDDI ring? >And I assume, spare power supplies and processors? I assume that there are adequate rat traps and rodent bait supplies :) -k --- Ken Lam lam(a)awod.com Integrated Technical Systems Systems, Networks, and Internet Solutions -- Defining Technology Today "'Plug and Play' was only applicable to the original ATARI(tm)"

2 1

RE: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP
by Vadim Antonov 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

Chris A. Icide <chris(a)nap.net> wrote: >I heard that there is an abandoned Nuclear Power Plant >construction site... Well, reinforced buildings do not help against a pair of morons with an axe and a truck with Montana plates. There's no way to protect all cables going out. Fortunately, there is an easy answer, and that is "geographical diversity". Helps a lot against earthquakes, hurricanes, cabin dwellers and other natural disasters. --vadim

2 1

RE: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP
by Chris A. Icide 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

I heard that there is an abandoned Nuclear Power Plant construction site with a fully completed conatainment building. I've seen the films of the testing they do for those things, and one of the tests was tossing an F-4 at the thing at about 600 knots or so. It left some black marks on the side. The site is called "Marble Hill" I'm not exactly sure where it is, but it's in the south east states somewhere. Perhaps you might think about acquiring space inside there. I also know the WPPS (Washington Public Power System, I think) was building a couple of plants that they gave up on after about 90% complete. You could also open a meet point up there somewhere! These were pretty close to Seattle. I'm sure that there are quite a few more unfinished plants around the country. In fact, I think they used one of these buildings to film one of those underwater movies. But then again, we run into the Cisco humidity problem. Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C. ---------- > From: Ken Lam > To: Avi Freedman; nathan(a)netrail.net (Nathan Stratton) > Cc: freedman(a)netaxs.com; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP > Date: Saturday, October 26, 1996 7:44 PM > > At 07:36 PM 10/26/96 -0400, Avi Freedman wrote: > > >Of course, I was half-joking, but why only one Gigaswitch? Why not two, > >for redundancy, as is implemented at Pennsauken? > > > >With a backup FDDI ring? > >And I assume, spare power supplies and processors? > > I assume that there are adequate rat traps and rodent bait supplies :) > > -k > > > --- > Ken Lam lam(a)awod.com > Integrated Technical Systems > Systems, Networks, and Internet Solutions -- Defining Technology Today > "'Plug and Play' was only applicable to the original ATARI(tm)" > >

1 0

Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings
by Vadim Antonov 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

Robert Laughlin wrote: >I am trying to feel sorry for the poor burdened Large ISP.....:) You really shouldn't. No more than for Safeway which won't buy your homegrown tomatoes. For them, those tomatoes simply do not worth the effort -- evern if you give them for free. That's a business decision. It's like everywhere. I see no point in whining about it. I tried to explain reasoning behind those decisions -- not that i have any sympathy for big business or any stake in large ISPs. --vadim

1 0

Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings
by Vadim Antonov 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

Zachary DeAquila <zachary(a)zachs.place.org> wrote: >Hrm. Does it matter if the small ISP already has transit with someone else? >In such a case, peering does nothing but shorten the path from SmallISP to >BigISP in order to no longer make it go through SmallISPs transit provider. Yes, but then from the point of view of large ISP the peering is of zero value. You see, it has to deliver packets to IXP anyway. OTOH, the load on routers, bloated configurations and engineering resources to support the additional peering are quite real. --vadim

3 2

Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings
by Vadim Antonov 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

>> Yes, but then from the point of view of large ISP the peering is of zero >> value. You see, it has to deliver packets to IXP anyway. OTOH, the >> load on routers, bloated configurations and engineering resources to >> support the additional peering are quite real. >Not quite zero - if you have direct Small/Big vs Small/Transit/Big, >then you bypass any potential problems with Transit. > --asp(a)partan.com (Andrew Partan) Well, but then you get problems with Small being sloppy with what they announce. Transit is large and supposedly is clueful enough (and have resources to develop tools) to ensure some sanity of routing information. Overall, the balance of problems is still zero; but the risk that your other business will be harmed is less in case of transit. --vadim

1 0

Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re:
by Vadim Antonov 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> wrote: >When you look at the relationship between two entire species like rabbits >and wolves it begins to look even more like cooperation where the rabbits >cooperate by providing food for the wolves and the wolves cooperate by NOT >WIPING OUT THE ENTIRE RABBIT POPULATION! Now, let's imagine that wolves learned to eat grass and started to enjoy it. What they do then is simply catch and eat all rabbits -- to eliminate competition for grass. Of course, some rabbits may be real quick-pawed (hint, hint). >It's called balance. It is bound to shift. --vadim

1 0

Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
by William Allen Simpson 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

> From: azeem(a)dial.pipex.com (Azeem Azhar) > Absolutely correct: can I direct you to two of our articles on the subject > (and a useful graphic): > http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/ld4401.html > http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf0774.html > http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf1.gif > I took a quick look at the articles, and see that you have confused rather a lot of technical details. For example, "intranets" are not "new" ways to bypass the Internet, and there is no such thing as a "private Internet". Intranets are just marketing-speak for the _existing_ local networks that the Internet joined together. Most local networks are already "private"; private networks have been with us for decades, and the "big I" Internet connects them to make them accessible outside their locality. Although you have identified some of the problems with currently priced phone systems, you were incorrect to state that the largest cost to the PSTN is the switches and wires. It is well documented here in the States that that the largest expense of any PSTN is the cost of administration, billing, and call management. It is clear that the primary edge enjoyed by the current Internet pricing models is the reduction in administrative overhead. It is inaccurate to say that "[Internet] users pay only for their cars and its fuel". The cost of the "street" is fixed, and well known to the providers, and is already included in the monthly cost of the "fuel". Similar to how we already fund roads here in the States (fuel tax)! And I wouldn't place too much credibility on the Varian/Mackie-Mason papers. As I have been watching them for some years, they published the same papers with minor modifications in multiple publications (a general no-no in the academic community for padding their Curriculum Vitae), and have had in the past models that bore little resemblance to Internet reality. As Mackie-Mason once admitted to me, (paraphrased off the top of my head) these concepts have been over-simplified for the consumption of economists. > That's true: in a conversation with Phil Lawlor (CEO of AGIS), he told me > that one of his customers ISPs, who was also peering with AGIS at the > Mae-E, indulged in "bandwidth stealing" by receiving their Usenet news feed > across Mae-E rather than as an AGIS customer across the few T-1s they had > to AGIS. > It seems you do not understand the concept of "peering", and little understand routing mechanisms. If the ISP is peering with AGIS at MAE-East, then AGIS has agreed to accept traffic _sent_ from the ISP at MAE-East for the rest of its network, at those locations included in AGIS BGP advertisements. Conversely, unless the AGIS routing sends to that ISP at MAE-East, then it would be impossible for the ISP to _receive_ their Usenet feed from AGIS. Therefore, AGIS itself _must_ have directed the flow at the ISP via MAE-East. The Internet routing is based on best-effort forwarding, not receiving. 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: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
by azeem＠dial.pipex.com 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

>I think the argument is undermined by the fact that peering in Europe is >in a fairly dismal state. Were there a MAE-{London, Paris, Prague} I >somehow think that the big five at least might throw a T3 or two over. >Until that happens, nothing will change. Maybe as access points start >springing up in Japan, the Phillipines, etc., the roadblocks to such a >cooperative project will start to be removed.' There are several large exchanges in Europe: the LINX (www.linx.net) with 28 peers, although some more peerworthy than others the D-GIX (at Stockholm) AMSIX E-bone in Paris and many others in Denmark, Rome, etc. And as for US providers throwing T3s they are starting to . . . but after UK (in particular) providers went the other way. Azeem Azeem Azhar vx: 0171-830 7133 The Economist fx: 0171-839 2968 25 St James's Street London SW1A 1HG

1 0