- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: ISP consolidation
by Jim Fleming 10 Apr '96

10 Apr '96

On Tuesday, April 09, 1996 3:51 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Srinivasarao Mulugu wrote: @ <snip> @ @> Well, one study I came across talks about a major shake-out over @> the next few years resulting in about 200 ISPs by 2000. It projects @> a decline in the number of ISPs beginning early 1997. @> <snip> @ @That's right. The Internet market and the Internet industry is still @growing by leaps and bounds. In order for a significant shakeout to @occur, that exponential growth curve has to level off. Even then there is @every possibility that there will be plenty of room for the small local ISP @especially when you understand how an ISP operation can be integrated @with a number of other computer/networking oriented businesses. @ @Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Also, ISPs of the future may not look like ISPs as we know them. For example, I have spoken to churches that want to install a rack of modems and provide dial-up service and e-mail to their congregation. Many of their people are not pleased having their e-mail being spooled at an ISP that browses through their messages. Their church becomes their "ISP". Not only do these churches want to provide traditional services, they also want to use real audio and other voice add-ons to broadcast their services. Special services for seniors are also being considered, such as monitoring for activity in their homes and the dispatching of people to the home if no packets are flowing to check if something is wrong. Another area where ISP growth will occur is in special interest group ISPs. Some groups may choose to provide "free" dial-up service in return for collecting statistics, market research, doing advertising, etc. Also, certain promotions and sweepstakes could be tied to free access via ISPs. For people that only want to use the Internet for a limited set of functions, an ISP could provide free service via a highly subsidized existing business. Stock brokerages and banks are obvious "vendors" that could provide selected customers with free or low-cost access. Some large banks already provide customers with free limos why not free Internet access? No matter what happens, Internet Access will be driven to a commodity pricing level as people and companies discover that they can provide a minimum number of services and still look good because of the synergy of the Internet. This may end if large information providers find that they can market their publications to selected ISPs that are willing to pay a small subscription fee based on the number of users supported by the ISP. This may cause a shake-out if ISPs find that they can not afford the fees and subscribers decide to go where the information flows freely or where truly unique services are offered via ISPs that have an exclusive for the region. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Sean Doran 10 Apr '96

10 Apr '96

Of course, it could also be paranoia, perhaps brought on by the delusion that this was nanog and not com-priv... ;> TFAAML? Sean.

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Sean Donelan 10 Apr '96

10 Apr '96

Although Sprint requested I not contact its engineers, I'll make and exception in this case. >| Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the >| sake of complexity. > >Oh, please. I have no need to prove the size of my NSPness. I would appreciate it if you showed me the same courtesy. >The complexity is there because it's needed to make things >WORK, so that you can get Internet connectivity. I'm very aware how well things are working. I have lots and lots of customers that feel things are working so well they've spent their own money to buy separate network lines to St. Louis because of the way things are "working." >You could help make things easier for everyone to help keep >you in business, rather than suggesting that people are out >to get you. The problem is you keep helping stay in this network business, I've been trying to get out of it. We've been trying to make things easier for customers to stay with their current network providers. We installed additional lines on the east coast, west coast, and Canada and offered to peer at additional places so other networks don't need to haul packets more than necessary and hopefully relieve some congestion. Instead some providers choose not to use the alternate paths we provided, but prefer to play hot potato with packets sending them twice around the continent. The result is customers ended up with and average of 31% packet loss between St. Louis and Dallas today. So customers feel the need to buy even more lines to St. Louis. My network business is growing like crazy, but you're killing my real business with your "help." I'm trying to help you keep your customers, why won't you accept the offer? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

The 192/8 survey
by bmanning＠isi.edu 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

Hi, The draft on router renumbering, the list of potential renumbering candidates, and a pointer to the cisco router discovery code for Solaris 1.x have been added to the PIER web pages. The PD dhcp code will be added soon http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier --bill

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Sean Donelan 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

>worries me; this is like announcing at the UN that you can only vote >if you have nuclear weapons. Some will be needless encouraged to add >complexity to their networks simply to be a "Tier 1". I like that! Are the "Tier 1" providers going to create a BGP non-proliferation pact? I was wondering why AGIS, AT&T/BBNplanet, MCI, and Sprint suddenly all needed to have their peering policies reviewed by their lawyers at the same time. I have this sinking feeling things are getting worse with people trying to one-up each other. You can't be a "Tier 1" provider unless your router config is 30,000 lines long. Well, my router config is 40,000 lines long, so I'm even better. Perhaps the adage should be "Making a network complicated is simple, but making a network simple is complicated." Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the sake of complexity. Personally I find today's front-door peerings infinitely easier to maintain than some of the backdoor monsters we used to sneak around the AUP requirements. But if nasty looking router configs is what it takes to be a Tier 1 provider, I can make mine as grody looking as the next guy's. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

iepg home page
by Paul Ferguson 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

Bill, You're suggestion for Dave Siegel to look at the IEPG home page revealed that its just a tad out-of-date: Details of the forthcoming December 4th 1994 meeting are located here. :-) - paul

4 3

Re: NANOG
by bob_metcalfe＠infoworld.com 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

Dear Mr. Huegen, Must say your below email about me was very upsetting. What EXACTLY was "rubbish" in my recent InfoWorld column about NANOG etc? /Bob Metcalfe PS: You're confusing me with the other Bob Metcalfe, the one who writes about hog prices. At 8:44 AM 4/4/96, Craig A. Huegen wrote: >Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com >>From c-huegen(a)quad.quadrunner.com >X-Envelope-From: c-huegen(a)quad.quadrunner.com >Received: from quad.quadrunner.com by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4kt9-000wxUC; Thu, 4 Apr 96 00:59 PST >Received: (from c-huegen@localhost) by quad.quadrunner.com (8.7.5/8.7-quad) id >AAA04296; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:30:26 -0800 >Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:30:25 -0800 (PST) >From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen(a)quad.quadrunner.com> >To: Jeremy Porter <jerry(a)fc.net> >cc: Bob Metcalfe <bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com>, jerry(a)fc.net, > letters(a)infoworld.com, nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: NANOG >In-Reply-To: <199604040616.AAA04651(a)freeside.fc.net> >Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960404002814.4165B-100000(a)quad.quadrunner.com> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote: > >> As top the top 100 cheief engineers, assuming for a moment that 100 >> number is something more than a number I pulled out of thin air., With >> your comments to Nanog you are probably addressing half. > >Bob Metcalfe is just another example of a computer journalist caught up >in the buzzwords of the current technology. It's sad to see such rubbish >in news, but hey, it's how they make the money. It's very disappointing >that he attempts to DEFEND his cluelessness against some of the BEST in >the industry. > >Bob, I recommend you go back to covering hog prices for the local paper. > >/cah ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe Executive Correspondent, InfoWorld and VP Technology, International Data Group Internet Messages: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com Voice Messages: 617-534-1215 Conference Chairman for ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing San Jose Convention Center March 1-5, 1997 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

3 2

Re: the Internet Backbone
by hcb＠clark.net 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

Here are my first thoughts on a tiered model, with attributes of each tier. Top level (Tier 1): -- provide transit as their principal business -- have at least some default-free routers -- have connectivity at >1 geographically separated major exchange -- need special measures to deal with BGP scaling issues inside their AS (or multiple AS) such as confederations, clusters, etc. 2nd Level -- provide transit within a geographic area -- may have default-free routers -- limit operations to a geographic area; may connect to multiple exchanges within that area 3rd Level -- do not provide commercial transit services, although they may incidentally provide transit among their customers -- do not do BGP peering with any "downstream" organizations. Their user base is part of their AS. -- May peer with multiple upstream providers 4th Level -- do not run BGP -- Internet access through provider only

8 9

RE: the Internet Backbone
by Barry Raveendran Greene 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

---------- From: Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman@netaxs.com] Sent: Saturday, April 06, 1996 1:15 AM To: Michael Dillon Cc: pferguso(a)cisco.com; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: the Internet Backbone > Are they an NSP? > Do they operate their own national backbone? > Can they provide national transit over their own network infrastructure? > Do they interconnect with other NSP's who satisfy the previous two > conditions at most of the public exchange points? Where public exchange points == {MAE-East, MAE-West, Pennsauken, PacBell NAP, Chicago NAP, and arguably the CIX router/cloud}. And NSPISP, NXIX, STIX, HKIX, D-GIX, F-GIX, CIXP, LINX, etc. etc. etc. Barry

3 2

RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by Kent W. England 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

At 08:25 AM 4/5/96 -0600, Tim Salo wrote: >Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant >event in the efforts to control routing table size. > >-tjs > Do we need address leasing to hasten that process or should we let the market decide? In any event, anyone buying up a bunch of ISPs will have a difficult time cleaning up the aggregation of addresses they inherit. --Kent BTW, I thought it was the updates, peerings and flaps that was the true problem, not the absolute number of routing table entries.

2 1