That's marketing folks for ya. Can't hold that against what the NAP can offer. Scott

-----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:13 PM To: Scott Patterson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: florida ix(en) facing south

...

(http://www.napoftheamericas.com/)

folk clueless enough to put up a shockwave-only page sure ain't gonna get a lot of big isp business.

but thanks for trying.

randy

OK, I'm not going to spend my day arguing for shockwave, or against it. If you want to read the site, read it. If not, don't. Either way, I agree that I would like to see the two initiatives working a little closer together. Scott

-----Original Message----- From: Bennett Todd [mailto:bet@rahul.net] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:11 PM To: Scott Patterson Cc: Randy Bush; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: florida ix(en) facing south

2000-12-21-12:17:26 Scott Patterson:

...

2000-12-21-09:13:08 Randy Bush:

...

folk clueless enough to put up a shockwave-only page sure ain't gonna get a lot of big isp business. That's marketing folks for ya. Can't hold that against what the NAP can offer.

Actually, you can.

If the website doesn't conform to reasonable standards, then either the company doesn't have technically competant people, or else they aren't able to influence the public website. Either way, I'd certainly steer a wide berth around any such company.

It's within the bounds of possibility that the company really has technically competant people, who don't for whatever reason care about the public presence of their company on the net, but could fix it if they bothered. Even that fantasy scenario doesn't make me want to do business with them.

-Bennett

On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:10:50PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote: [..]

It's within the bounds of possibility that the company really has technically competant people, who don't for whatever reason care about the public presence of their company on the net, but could fix it if they bothered. Even that fantasy scenario doesn't make me want to do business with them. [..]

Hmm, maybe. And it is also within the bounds of possibility that the technically competant people working the product may not have much say or link to the public appearance of their respective Internet presence. Reality of life in some places. YMMV. Cheers, Chris -- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only.""

[Speaking on pubic information and personal opinion] Frankly I dont think Bellsouth has done an amazing job of explaining it's design premises or capabilities to the public. I know they made a big effort to make sure if you had an existing pop or colo that there was no need for a forklift; you could get cost effective services from any area of South Florida. They should have nodes in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach areas and it is flat rated service last I heard. There is a DWDM and optical switching piece built in such that providers should be able to do private peering as quickly and easily as setting up an ATM PVC, however it will be circuit based. The thinking was to allow large backbones to establish private peering session extremely quickly at speeds up to OC192. Obviously if you are located next to a node and can do a physical cross connect that is much cheaper then running a circuit 100 miles. However, if are located at a node of a carrier ring / network that has fibre extending into a node, it may be just as cheap if you are 50miles away or 1 mile. In this case the nodes might be thought of as "extended nap nodes" in a way. Bellsouth really needs to do a presentation at NANOG and explain some of the design pros and cons. From what I have seen once you work through it you see that this is a huge leap from establishing private peering sessions. Capacity can also be added in hours instead of months thanks to DWDM and optical switching. It's a good design that needs to be taken to an open forum discussion at nanog. dd At 2:09 PM -0500 12/21/00, Jeff Mcadams wrote:

Also sprach Christian Kuhtz

...

On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:10:50PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote: [..]

...

It's within the bounds of possibility that the company really has technically competant people, who don't for whatever reason care about the public presence of their company on the net, but could fix it if they bothered. Even that fantasy scenario doesn't make me want to do business with them. [..]

...

Hmm, maybe.

...

And it is also within the bounds of possibility that the technically competant people working the product may not have much say or link to the public appearance of their respective Internet presence. Reality of life in some places. YMMV.

Yup, and as someone else already mentioned, I believe, this is still a good reason to avoid working with such a company.

Hrmm, and I'm saying this to someone from BellSouth, how ironic. :) -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456

-- Thank you, David Diaz Chairman, iCEO International Wire Communications, Inc. www.iwcinc.net www.smoton.net 305-273-7978 email: davediaz@iwcinc.net, dave@smoton.net pager: pagedave@iwcinc.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why ride the light when you can surf a wave!"

Once upon a time, Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> said:

And it is also within the bounds of possibility that the technically competant people working the product may not have much say or link to the public appearance of their respective Internet presence. Reality of life in some places. YMMV.

It is also within the bounds of possibility that the technically competent people may not ever _look_ at the public web site. :-) I know that I rarely look at ours, except for a while where it seemed like every odd three word combination search at Google brought our web site up first. The technical people are more likely to look at pages that they need or work on, such as status sites and such. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Hey Randy, Yes there is more than one NAP going on so it's a similar situation to San Fran. We have both NAPs on net and we like to say while colos are carrier neutral we are colo neutral. Meaning you could be in Teleplace, Switch and Data or other facilities and ride our fibre into both NAPs as well as all the major backbones. I personally believe there will be a good deal of backbones connecting to both NAPs as they have different advantages. I can speak with you off list if you want to discuss the pros and cons. Im in Miami so I might have a more involved perspective. Dave At 12:04 PM -0500 12/21/00, Scott Patterson wrote:

We have been involved in both potential NAPs from the beginning, but seems the one with most involvement is NOTA (Nap of the Americas). Which is the only one we are pursuing now. Check out the website (http://www.napoftheamericas.com/) for all of the details and member listings thus far. They are turning up an interim facility in the next month or so, with the permanent facility to open sometime next summer. Very carrier neutral, which is one thing I believe to be very different of the other facility, which BellSouth is trying to initiate. Let me know if you have specific questions that the website does not answer.

Scott Patterson NetRail

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:49 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: florida ix(en) facing south

i get rumors of one or more exchange points being built in south florida where there may be good participation by latin and caribbean networks. any good gossip, pointers, ...? any choices which are not carrier jails?

randy

-- Thank you, David Diaz Chairman, iCEO International Wire Communications, Inc. www.iwcinc.net www.smoton.net 305-273-7978 email: davediaz@iwcinc.net, dave@smoton.net pager: pagedave@iwcinc.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why ride the light when you can surf a wave!"

Jon, Keep in mind that all of those actions, including turning up an interim facility, were voted on by the membership. It's not like a MAE, where the operator can take action without the consent of the members. As far as who is going to be there - I would assume that the vast majority of members will be in the facility pretty quickly. Of course, that doesn't translate into willingness to peer with anyone. I know of several members who have no intention of peering on the public fabric - only privately. All of the "big guys" going in, intend to sell transit in the facility as well. - Dan Golding On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 jlewis@lewis.org wrote:

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Scott Patterson wrote:

...

We have been involved in both potential NAPs from the beginning, but seems the one with most involvement is NOTA (Nap of the Americas). Which is the only one we are pursuing now. Check out the website (http://www.napoftheamericas.com/) for all of the details and member listings thus far. They are turning up an interim facility in the next month or so, with the permanent facility to open sometime next summer. Very

Annoying web site. Impressive list of members. How do we tell who's really going to be there before we commit to the expense of being there? Why on earth would someone turn up an interim NAP knowing a "permenant facility" will come next year? Do they really expect participants to put out the work and expense to connect to a NAP knowing they'll have to rip gear and circuits out and move in the near future? We're not all .com's burning VC money to keep our hands warm while we work in buildings where the A/C only works in the winter and is actually run when it's 30-40F outside.

Does anyone make typing gloves? (you thought I was kidding about the A/C)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 09:59:12AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:

...

Keep in mind that all of those actions, including turning up an interim facility, were voted on by the membership. It's not like a MAE, where the operator can take action without the consent of the members.

oh goodie! it's a social club like the linx. do the current members get to vote on who can be new members too? are there fun fun fun membership meetings with cookies?

Hopefully they will set up an operational list where everyone can send the new AS's and routes. We want to make sure any new naps have as many route leaks as the current ones. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

Hey gang, hmm, I feel I should say a few words here. [..]

I guess my hope at this point is that BellSouth will jump on the bandwagon, and make their facility part of NOTA.

First of all, let me politely state that I really don't care to get into anything that could even remotely be considered a "NAP war". This is perhaps what could be considered a competitive arena and the better one will win; beyond that.. only time will tell. So, instead of going that route of incoherent, "sound bite like" discussions, I would like to stress that I intend to do a detailed presentation of the Florida-MIX at the February NANOG in Atlanta. During this presentation and afterwards, with regards to the Florida-MIX I will entertain any question presented to me. I think as a result of having all the information out on the table, we(*) hope that it may become quite clear why we believe the above suggestion really is no solution for the challenge presented to us, as there are significant differences in architecture, operational implications, and, say, environmental factors. These aren't just two vanilla NAPs who are mirror images of each other, there are -- we feel -- fundamental differences that need to be discussed in a factual manner. And it is one more reason to attend the 1st NANOG in 2001 ;-). (*) we: organizations external and internal to BellSouth, whether in supporting roles or as potential participants.

I just hope everyone goes into this with an open mind [..]

And likewise any rush to judgement doesn't really serve anyone at all. I think anyone who is serious about peering and whose business depends on it will want to make that decision carefully and deliberately, and knowing all the facts available to them. Cheers, Chris -- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only."

On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:46:38PM -0500, Jeff Barrows wrote: [..]

- Miami Internet Exchange (FloridaMIX, a Bell South initiative for a distributed exchange.)

Last time I checked, both of these had essentially the same objective, with differences in the areas of architecture and personal interests. [..]

Since Deron and I are working on this project, please allow me to add a few things here. Perhaps they can clarify a few things. There's a perception here that by design the NAP is intended to be a carrier jail or trap. That's not the case. And I don't think it is just Deron or myself suffering from amnesia at the moment ;-). The intent is to provide an exchange point where you can colo or participate from off-site in an existing carrier hotel or data center or whatever. And this is one of the dominating criteria in the design. The choice which one you select is yours depending on what your specifc preferences are. We try to be very flexible to the point that we are location independant, but there are probably some economic realities which will set in soone or later. The Florida-MIX is designed to provide several different ways of connecting to the NAP, and I am not aware of any restrictions which tie you to a particular carrier. In fact, we're trying to provide a peering service which is not tied to any transport in particular, and extend peering beyond IPv4 to MPLS & IPv6 etc. The current plans is to introduce these services in phases during the course of 2001. I understand (and since I wasn't born into this company, I also share) some of the feelings and reservations against RBOCs. However, I think in BellSouth.net's defence, there are several fine IP geeks working on this project, and a lot of brains and effort spent on worrying about how to make this successful and we're trying our very best to do this right (and it doesn't just stop at giving the exchange enough bw, it is also a matter of making the operations side working smoothly and efficient). I'll rather quit here before I sound like I'm spewing PR BS. So, I would like to extend the offer to anyone interested and with specific comments or questions to contact Deron and/or myself so that we may try to answer them as best as we can. I think it is foolish to believe that any one organization has all the answers and we welcome feedback and input. Cheers, Chris -- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only.""

On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 02:07:59PM -0500, Douglas A. Dever wrote: [..]

Of course, there are probably some economic realities which will set in sooner or later. :-)

Not to get into a flame war, but.. The implication I read into it is that they will definitely work against you. Sorry if I got that wrong. We only cook with water around here and this isn't created in a vacuum. And I think there are some obvious realities to transport costs which have nothing to do with whether I'm writing this and happen to be employed by an affiliate of an RBOC or not. Like, is an ATM VC cost really cheaper (if it some happens that it does appear that way) than say TDM transport or a 802.1q GE pipe when you take into account overhead, equipment and operational cost? I think the answer depends on far more than the NAP, specifically who you are and what your infrastructure is. If you happen to be a fibermule, you probably don't care to run ATM unless you must. If you happen to already have ATM and that's what you live by then perhaps it's not worth the change. If you are colo-ed, why bother with anything but a cheap and efficient VLAN? Just to point out a few examples, don't claim I have any authority on any of the answers at this point (because there are a lot more variables to actually answer these questions; some are very subjective).

I have no doubt of that, but in the end, these things have to pay for themselves. Many projects start out with incredibly open-minded people working on a great project, but in order to shake things out on the bottom line, bean-counters and MBA's eventually brush some (or a lot) of that aside to address the "economic realities." Forgive me if I'm sounding skeptical, but none of us are here to lose money.

True. And you should be skeptical like the rest of us. I guess we'll all see how it turns out. But it also depends a great deal on communicating clearly, so, hopefully this will aid in that regard. Cheers, Chris PS: Thank god for the nomex lined pants ;-) -- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only.""