Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Not so fast. While each of his customers is more inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has someone else to blame.
That depends. Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be transit free... so there isn't really a hole created. Sure, the smaller guy is going to be paying more on transit rather than peering, but C&W customers probably won't notice a thing, other than some relief on the congested pipes to the public peering points.
The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got for free. Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant reduction in congestion then there must have been a significant amount of traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War (http://www.pimpwar.com). :P -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 And now, to "drop the bomb"... The other issue is that this isn't just C&W vs FNSI. The word on the street is that C&W is engaged in a "Kamikazee Peering" strategy in order to boost transit revenues. Rumor has it that other recipients of the C&W nasty-gram include Level 3, Telia, NetRail, XO, and Verio. There are certain to be others as well. I can't swear on a stack of bibles that these folks have gotten the letter, but that's the story, at least. If true, then we are talking about a reasonable chunk of the commodity Internet. It's unusual to "name names" in the peering game, but this is an intolerable and almost unpresidented situation, as some or all of the networks listed above are transit-free. And, contrary to Randy's comments, this is certainly enough of the Internet to cause disruption. We must ask: 1) Is this the end of peering as we know it? Is it settlement time all around? 2) Is C&W simply flaking out? Will they end up screwing themselves? 3) Will we stand up to the bully on the playground? 4) Is this a crisis effecting global reachability? #1 is doubtful - the only current condition that could really cause this is the collapse of multiple transit-free carriers due to current market conditions. It would take more than a PSINet implosion to cause this, I'm guessing. #2 - C&W's peering decision makers are certainly taking a risk, here. It is devoutly hoped that their poor judgement comes back to haunt them. On the other hand, perhaps they'll experience a change of heart, and be filled with the spirit of Internet Brotherhood. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath. #3 - Well, I doubt it. At least one ISP has already crumbled and agreed to a settlement with C&W. #4 - Yep. C&W's actions and the resulting disruptions in service that we'll see because of them, over the next 30 days, mark a new chapter in peering disputes. Should be interesting to see how it all pans out. Now, back to the regularly scheduled off-topic threads concerning telcom legislation and blackholing China... - - Daniel L. Golding (Speaking only for me)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Richard A. Steenbergen Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 1:08 AM To: John Payne Cc: David Schwartz; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Not so fast. While each of his customers is more inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has someone else to blame.
That depends. Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be transit free... so there isn't really a hole created. Sure, the smaller guy is going to be paying more on transit rather than peering, but C&W customers probably won't notice a thing, other than some relief on the congested pipes to the public peering points.
The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got for free.
Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant reduction in congestion then there must have been a significant amount of traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War (http://www.pimpwar.com). :P
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOvTu2X/79ekXZHvJEQLv5ACbBJdomK1cyrjHSTjcebVjxpMqEIsAn0M0 h9TaLbNrdaV6wIFgdi1PCp0l =JYUx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I feel I have to comment on the second point of your e-mail. It makes clear points as the how each provider is going to take full responsibility for their peering decisions. I have seen a trend where Tier 1's (nation-wide large carriers - don't want to debate the term too much) are willing to offer transit contracts to regional or tier2 nationals at cost, or only at a very small margin. This move by C&W to begin charging for those providers seems to be a very large departure from this method. As we all know, the value of the big player, is how many people they are connected to. It seems that providers are willing to take a a risk by either peering or selling very cheap transit in order to appear as a well connected ISP to the rest of the Internet. My concern now, after reading this, is how do I know value the ISPs that I buy transit from. What is the guarantees that I have that the bandwidth I expect from a transit carrier is going to be maintained. I have been a long time customer of C&W well into the MCI days. While I have had my difficulties, I feel that they have been a solid carrier. However, it has been a struggle lately to keep more and more traffic on their backbone. This whole thread seems to be the cause. In summary, my question is this: Does a peering policy like this make sense? My answer to this is: It may, but it is forsaking two different types of customers. The first, the tier 1/2 customers that is now enforcing a tariff against. The second, regional carriers that can no longer afford to purchase second rate transit. So, how can I justify paying C&W for this bandwidth that day by day may be losing value. I'd be interested to hear how many people that feel that C&W's decisions affects their direction for connectivity. Tony On Sunday, May 6, 2001, at 01:27 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
2) Is C&W simply flaking out? Will they end up screwing themselves?
#2 - C&W's peering decision makers are certainly taking a risk, here. It is devoutly hoped that their poor judgement comes back to haunt them. On the other hand, perhaps they'll experience a change of heart, and be filled with the spirit of Internet Brotherhood. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Richard A. Steenbergen Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 1:08 AM To: John Payne Cc: David Schwartz; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Not so fast. While each of his customers is more inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has someone else to blame.
That depends. Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be transit free... so there isn't really a hole created. Sure, the smaller guy is going to be paying more on transit rather than peering, but C&W customers probably won't notice a thing, other than some relief on the congested pipes to the public peering points.
The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got for free.
Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant reduction in congestion then there must have been a significant amount of traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War (http://www.pimpwar.com). :P
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOvTu2X/79ekXZHvJEQLv5ACbBJdomK1cyrjHSTjcebVjxpMqEIsAn0M0 h9TaLbNrdaV6wIFgdi1PCp0l =JYUx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It would be interesting to note if the C&W policy change is reflected in a quantifiable deterioration of 3561's placement on the CAIDA skitter chart. I would like to think that Draconian peering policies leads to economic pain. It seems to be worthy of note that AGIS and PSI tried to use the "pay me don't peer" card before they deteriorated. It seems in some cases more an act of financial desperation rather than acting in the best long term interest of the network or the customers. The more open networks move quickly to center stage while the large networks build walls in moves of quite desperation. 3561 was once the "North Star" of the Internet constellation. IMHO said stringent peering policies moves 3561 in a direction that is not in the best interest of the C&W customers or the C&W stockholders. "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..." At 2:44 AM -0500 06-05-2001, Tony Mumm wrote:
I feel I have to comment on the second point of your e-mail. It makes clear points as the how each provider is going to take full responsibility for their peering decisions.
I have seen a trend where Tier 1's (nation-wide large carriers - don't want to debate the term too much) are willing to offer transit contracts to regional or tier2 nationals at cost, or only at a very small margin. This move by C&W to begin charging for those providers seems to be a very large departure from this method.
As we all know, the value of the big player, is how many people they are connected to. It seems that providers are willing to take a a risk by either peering or selling very cheap transit in order to appear as a well connected ISP to the rest of the Internet.
My concern now, after reading this, is how do I know value the ISPs that I buy transit from. What is the guarantees that I have that the bandwidth I expect from a transit carrier is going to be maintained.
I have been a long time customer of C&W well into the MCI days. While I have had my difficulties, I feel that they have been a solid carrier. However, it has been a struggle lately to keep more and more traffic on their backbone. This whole thread seems to be the cause.
In summary, my question is this:
Does a peering policy like this make sense?
My answer to this is: It may, but it is forsaking two different types of customers. The first, the tier 1/2 customers that is now enforcing a tariff against. The second, regional carriers that can no longer afford to purchase second rate transit.
So, how can I justify paying C&W for this bandwidth that day by day may be losing value.
I'd be interested to hear how many people that feel that C&W's decisions affects their direction for connectivity.
Tony
On Sunday, May 6, 2001, at 01:27 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
2) Is C&W simply flaking out? Will they end up screwing themselves?
#2 - C&W's peering decision makers are certainly taking a risk, here. It is devoutly hoped that their poor judgement comes back to haunt them. On the other hand, perhaps they'll experience a change of heart, and be filled with the spirit of Internet Brotherhood. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Richard A. Steenbergen Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 1:08 AM To: John Payne Cc: David Schwartz; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Not so fast. While each of his customers is more inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has someone else to blame.
>
That depends. Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be transit free... so there isn't really a hole created. Sure, the smaller guy is going to be paying more on transit rather than peering, but C&W customers probably won't notice a thing, other than some relief on the congested pipes to the public peering points.
The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got for free.
Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant reduction in congestion then there must have been a significant amount of traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War (http://www.pimpwar.com). :P
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOvTu2X/79ekXZHvJEQLv5ACbBJdomK1cyrjHSTjcebVjxpMqEIsAn0M0 h9TaLbNrdaV6wIFgdi1PCp0l =JYUx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Joseph T. Klein +1 414 915 7489 Senior Network Engineer jtk@titania.net Adelphia Business Solutions joseph.klein@adelphiacom.com "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..." -- John W. Stewart III
Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back then, I doubt that CW can now. Things have changed a lot in 5 years, but I would suspect that "Stealing the Internet" would now be harder rather than easier. At 01:31 PM 5/6/01 -0500, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
It seems to be worthy of note that AGIS and PSI tried to use the "pay me don't peer" card before they deteriorated.
Altert: Pardon my ignorance on this issue, but I read C&W's receint peering agreement and it seems they are simply trying to define what is a true "peer". My question is, where is the traditional line that defines who should be a "peer" and who should be a customer and shouldn't that be open to re-evaluation as the network evolves. Is it that C&W has "rigged" their peering agreement with specifics that would de-peer legitimate peers or are they just trying to protect themselves from an evolutinary change. Chuck On Mon, 7 May 2001, Albert Meyer wrote:
Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back then, I doubt that CW can now. Things have changed a lot in 5 years, but I would suspect that "Stealing the Internet" would now be harder rather than easier.
At 01:31 PM 5/6/01 -0500, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
It seems to be worthy of note that AGIS and PSI tried to use the "pay me don't peer" card before they deteriorated.
--
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:27:37AM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
And now, to "drop the bomb"...
Sorry, didn't see this because you're posting from an open relay listed in RSS, so it went into a spam folder. You might want to talk to your mail provider or something. (see http://mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss-sview?64.112.90.81)
The other issue is that this isn't just C&W vs FNSI. The word on the street is that C&W is engaged in a "Kamikazee Peering" strategy in order to boost transit revenues. Rumor has it that other recipients of the C&W nasty-gram include Level 3, Telia, NetRail, XO, and Verio. There are certain to be others as well. I can't swear on a stack of bibles that these folks have gotten the letter, but that's the story, at least. If true, then we are talking about a reasonable chunk of the commodity Internet.
Yes, this is a different game.
#3 - Well, I doubt it. At least one ISP has already crumbled and agreed to a settlement with C&W.
Shame.
#4 - Yep. C&W's actions and the resulting disruptions in service that we'll see because of them, over the next 30 days, mark a new chapter in peering disputes. Should be interesting to see how it all pans out.
It would be nice if this action did end up hurting C&W more than any other individual provider... will it? Depends on who crumbles -- John Payne http://www.sackheads.org/jpayne/ john@sackheads.org http://www.sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954 To send me mail, use the address in the From: header
participants (7)
-
Albert Meyer -
Charles Scott -
Daniel Golding -
John Payne -
Joseph T. Klein -
Richard A. Steenbergen -
Tony Mumm