On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
A few years ago you could probably bamboozle them about your secret sauce containing "transit free", "peering", "x exchange points" and so on. Today I suspect they are less susceptible to that kind of story and more likely to rely on the experience of existing customers. And if the existing customers of L3 and Cogent are experiencing agony, what kind of marketing story does that tell?
Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced rulesets they'd have to follow. The irony of this is that it sounds both like a nightmare and a dream. USTIER [peer] EUTIER [peer] ASIATIER | | | \ \ \ \ \ \ $STATE_TIER $COUNTRY_TIER $COUNTRY_TIER Where in the US there would be a main focal tier funded by this consortium. This might minimize the roles of greedy corporate execs breaking routes. It would be (again) funded by the gov, taxes, and monies can be generated by peering with this network. The monies charged would be sufficient to keep it running. In this plan, there could be less mechanisms of Adelphia/Worldcom fuzzy math of selling a billion years worth of bandwidth for write offs as well. /* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning */ =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x97B43D89 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey
J. Oquendo wrote:
Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced rulesets they'd have to follow. The irony of this is that it sounds both like a nightmare and a dream.
Congratulations, you've reinvented the Internet. This is exactly what we did when we built the original (NSFnet). It worked! We specified regional interconnection. If you wanted to connect, that's where you had to connect, and you were required to take the traffic from everybody else at the point of interconnection. No arguments. This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts. Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly. Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:56 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
J. Oquendo wrote:
Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced rulesets they'd have to follow. The irony of this is that it sounds both like a nightmare and a dream.
</snip>
This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts.
Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly.
How does replacing non-profit organisations (which most public IX'es are) with government bodies and governmental legislation improve anything...?
Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics.
But why government regulated instead of IX member regulated...? -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Erik Haagsman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:56 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts.
Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly.
How does replacing non-profit organisations (which most public IX'es are) with government bodies and governmental legislation improve anything...?
Government _is_ a non-profit organization, with generally broader representation. How does replacing a representative government with a smaller feudal organization improve anything?
Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics.
But why government regulated instead of IX member regulated...?
Because as much as it's best not to rely on thugs with guns, I really don't want the thugs with guns to be private armies. How do you expect to enforce your "member" regulations? Again (to keep this on-topic), this partitioning is exactly what we predicted. And I don't see your member regulations having any effect. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
William Allen Simpson wrote:
How do you expect to enforce your "member" regulations?
Again (to keep this on-topic), this partitioning is exactly what we predicted. And I don't see your member regulations having any effect.
Following up on my own post, according to http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/ Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them? And how quickly would you expect this resolution? Compare and contrast with the well-respected Packet Clearing House: http://www.pch.net/ -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
* wsimpson@greendragon.com (William Allen Simpson) [Thu 06 Oct 2005, 19:10 CEST]:
Following up on my own post, according to http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/
Useful page, isn't it?
Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open
So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them?
That particular member organisation has a policy of not interfering with its members' peering policies. It expects its members to send packets only to people who explicitly asked for it over the shared infrastructure (via announcements of prefixes via BGP), and to pay their bills on time. -- Niels. -- "Calling religion a drug is an insult to drugs everywhere. Religion is more like the placebo of the masses." -- MeFi user boaz
Niels Bakker wrote:
* wsimpson@greendragon.com (William Allen Simpson) [Thu 06 Oct 2005, 19:10 CEST]:
Following up on my own post, according to http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/
Useful page, isn't it?
I wish that all IXs had one.
Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open
So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them?
That particular member organisation has a policy of not interfering with its members' peering policies. It expects its members to send packets only to people who explicitly asked for it over the shared infrastructure (via announcements of prefixes via BGP), and to pay their bills on time.
Arguably a very good thing. IXs shouldn't be in the "enforcement" business. That's for governments. (As you will remember, I was refuting his generalization that "private" organizations are somehow preferable to "public" organizations. It has always been my preference to argue with specifics in hand.) -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Following up on my own post, according to http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/
Useful page, isn't it?
I wish that all IXs had one.
I wish everyones was as complete as LINX's: https://www.linx.net/www_public/our_members/peering_matrix/ http://green.linx.net/cgi-bin/peering_matrix2.cgi -Hank
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:51 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: <snip>
Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open
So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them?
That particular member organisation has a policy of not interfering with its members' peering policies. It expects its members to send packets only to people who explicitly asked for it over the shared infrastructure (via announcements of prefixes via BGP), and to pay their bills on time.
Arguably a very good thing. IXs shouldn't be in the "enforcement" business. That's for governments.
Exactly the reason I don't want governments anywhere near an IX. Every network connected to an IX should be allowed to enforce it's own internal policies when connecting with other networks *without* a governmental body trying to enforce certain rules and regulations. One network only peers with a select few, the other only on basis of bandwidth profile and some with as many peers as possible. Without one telling the other what to do or someone sitting behind a desk trying to come up with a Grand Unified Peering Policy that everyone should adhere to. Fine by me.
(As you will remember, I was refuting his generalization that "private" organizations are somehow preferable to "public" organizations. It has always been my preference to argue with specifics in hand.)
I never generalised, I merely pointed out that creating governmental IX's has nog benefits compared to the current IX's. AMS-IX, DE-CIX, LINX, etc. etc are open to everyone wanting to connect, that's public enough for me, without having to be goverment controlled. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Erik Haagsman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:51 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Arguably a very good thing. IXs shouldn't be in the "enforcement" business. That's for governments.
Exactly the reason I don't want governments anywhere near an IX. Every network connected to an IX should be allowed to enforce it's own internal policies when connecting with other networks *without* a governmental body trying to enforce certain rules and regulations.
Networks should not be in the enforcement business. They have no guns. IXs should not be in the enforcement business. They have no guns. Even those IXs with MPLA policy have to rely on law and courts for enforcement -- that is, those with guns. I repeat my initial assertion, to wit:
This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussi[ng] the terms of the contracts.
Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly.
When the "internal policies" -- which in this case are not technical, but rather commercial advantage -- are against public policy, that is the realm of governments.
One network only peers with a select few, the other only on basis of bandwidth profile and some with as many peers as possible. Without one telling the other what to do or someone sitting behind a desk trying to come up with a Grand Unified Peering Policy that everyone should adhere to. Fine by me.
I'm afraid your head-in-the-sand approach doesn't appear to be working well at this time. Major network partition, affecting thousands of networks and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of actual people, 48 hours and counting. Moreover, I thought it might be worthwhile to check what you might have posted previously, and found that you started posting on NANOG in 2004, during another L(3) partition. Methinks thou doeth protest too much. I'm not entirely sure that you are a shill for L(3), but please explain your personal interest? Especially as a Northern European posting on a North American operator's list? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 07:44 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: <snip>
I repeat my initial assertion, to wit:
This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussi[ng] the terms of the contracts.
Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly.
When the "internal policies" -- which in this case are not technical, but rather commercial advantage -- are against public policy, that is the realm of governments.
So we want to revert to a model where the goverment starts influencing company policy based on what criteria...? Networks are commercial endeavours by default, since they cost money to run and need to generate revenue stay in existence, at least last time I checked. Unless you'd like the entire Internet to be under governmental control I don't see how you'd want a government to enforce any policy. This sounds very much like trying to turn ISP's into semi-public companies, which they're not and IMO shouldn't be.
One network only peers with a select few, the other only on basis of bandwidth profile and some with as many peers as possible. Without one telling the other what to do or someone sitting behind a desk trying to come up with a Grand Unified Peering Policy that everyone should adhere to. Fine by me.
I'm afraid your head-in-the-sand approach doesn't appear to be working well at this time. Major network partition, affecting thousands of networks and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of actual people, 48 hours and counting.
This is definitely a bad thing but not a problem for governments to solve. Bringing the government to the table will create more problems than solve them.
Moreover, I thought it might be worthwhile to check what you might have posted previously, and found that you started posting on NANOG in 2004, during another L(3) partition.
Glad you take an interest.
Methinks thou doeth protest too much.
Perhaps, but I'd like companies and market forces to solve these problems, not governments. ISP's are free to choose (multiple) upstreams they wish for, people are free to choose whichever ISP they want, and SLA's and contracts *should* be there to protect people from stupidity like this Cogent/L(3) pissing contest.
I'm not entirely sure that you are a shill for L(3), but please explain your personal interest? Especially as a Northern European posting on a North American operator's list?
I never knew I was Swedish, but thanks for telling me. We've got L(3) as one of our transits, so I do take an interest. Most of my larger upstreams are fully or partly NA based and we send quite a bit of traffic to these parts so I *thought* I'd follow the list and pitch in when I felt like doing so. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Even those IXs with MPLA policy have to rely on law and courts for enforcement -- that is, those with guns.
In the United States, as in most countries, there is an explicit separation of the courts from the enforcement of laws. For instance, in the United States, the Executive Branch is in charge of the guys with guns, while the Judicial branch only deals with making decisions about the application of the laws created by the Legislative branch. The laws are executed and enforced by the Executive branch, hence the name. Laws only need to be enforced when there is a dispute. Laws and regulations, do not necessarily imply that enforcement action is needed. Many people and organizations comply with laws for reasons other than the existence of enforcers. For instance, an organization may feel that it is in the industry's best interests to comply with regulations and therefore it does so in order to set an example for its competitors and to attract customers. Regulations also do not imply the involvement of governments. It is possible for industries to self-regulate such as the ARIN policies which are a product of the ARIN membership, i.e. companies who use IP addresses in their networks. There are also currently attempts to establish self-regulation in the email industry. In the past there was some regulation of Internet peering by the members of an industry organization in the USA called CIX.
I'm afraid your head-in-the-sand approach doesn't appear to be working well at this time. Major network partition, affecting thousands of networks and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of actual people, 48 hours and counting.
If the press would truly understand this event then they would be reporting this as a *MAJOR* flaw in the business model of the largest ISPs. The absence of regulation in Internet peering allows this type of situation to come about. It is my opinion that the network and the Internet business would both be stronger if there was some regulation of peering and IP/MPLS network interconnection. This could be done in a couple of ways. One is to have an industry association develop self-regulation in conjunction with major end users of network services. The other would be for regulation to be imposed from without by some kind of interconnect or monitoring business like Equinix or Keynote. The analogy here is the New York Stock Exchange which is a 3rd party which monitors and interconnects the buyers and sellers of shares. In the case of Internet operators I don't foresee the need for an SEC equivalent unless operators cannot agree to disclose their peering agreements and the technical details of their interconnects. A couple of good things can come out of this "open peering" model. One is that disclosure of the technical details, including packet drop, buffer consumption, and bandwidth, would lead to more reliable interconnects and the ability to provide quality of service SLAs across provider networks. The other possible benefit is to develop more sophisticated interconnect variants such as MPLS VPN interconnects and CDN or multicast interconnects. --Michael Dillon
Growing mainstream press today, e.g., http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/10/07/ dispute_threatens_to_snarl_internet/ Note the title: "Dispute threatens to snarl Internet: Service providers' row may spur push for global regulation" Quick showing of hands: How many people think that the disputants are not-so-secretly hoping that the title is accurate, because it represents a far better future for them than what our newly re-engineered "market" for transport services is likely to provide? (a conspiratorially good morning to all) TV
Google Goes to Washington One of the issues Google will tackle has become news this week: Level 3 and Cogent Communications are involved in a spat that has made Web sites on each network inaccessible or very slow to users on the opposite network. Google said the government has a responsibility to monitor the Internet so events like this do not occur. http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070 Ross Hosman
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Ross Hosman wrote:
Google Goes to Washington
http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070
Another snippet from same article: ===== Google will also push for laws that make ISPs and intermediaries liable for the content contained on their servers. Google just indexes the information, the search engine argued, and feels it is not its place to censor information contained throughout the Web. ===== Well, isn't that "fun"? -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 11:21 -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
Another snippet from same article:
===== Google will also push for laws that make ISPs and intermediaries liable for the content contained on their servers. Google just indexes the information, the search engine argued, and feels it is not its place to censor information contained throughout the Web. =====
Well, isn't that "fun"?
Ahhh....they feel they shouldn't sensor, and there I was thinking that was Google's task in life. Very generous and what a great idea for new laws that firmly put the blame on anyone but Google. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
At 16:26 07/10/2005, Erik Haagsman wrote:
Google will also push for laws that make ISPs and intermediaries liable for the content contained on their servers. Well, isn't that "fun"?
Ahhh....they feel they shouldn't sensor, and there I was thinking that was Google's task in life. Very generous and what a great idea for new laws that firmly put the blame on anyone but Google.
...and how does that affect Google caching? ;)
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Erik Haagsman wrote:
Google will also push for laws that make ISPs and intermediaries liable for the content contained on their servers. Google just indexes the information, the search engine argued, and feels it is not its place to censor information contained throughout the Web.
Ahhh....they feel they shouldn't sensor, and there I was thinking that was Google's task in life. Very generous and what a great idea for new laws that firmly put the blame on anyone but Google.
That wasn't my reason for citing it. Neither Google *nor* intermediaries should be responsible for illegal content -- to them, it's just bits moving. The only responsibility that *either* one should bear is the ability to provide an audit trail to the real culprit, no more. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 13:32 -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Erik Haagsman wrote:
Ahhh....they feel they shouldn't sensor, and there I was thinking that was Google's task in life. Very generous and what a great idea for new laws that firmly put the blame on anyone but Google.
That wasn't my reason for citing it. Neither Google *nor* intermediaries should be responsible for illegal content -- to them, it's just bits moving.
The only responsibility that *either* one should bear is the ability to provide an audit trail to the real culprit, no more.
Correct. Holding a dial-up ISP responsible for content on one of it's customer's machines (or perhaps even a warez server on the other side of the globe?) is complete nonsense. Having them provide forensic info is another (more sensible) matter. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Also: US Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat and ranking member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, hinted that the Federal Communications Commission might interfere in the matter. ''Obviously, I hope the parties will reach a timely commercial arrangement to resolve this dispute," said Markey, ''but the FCC must be prepared to take steps to assure continuity of service to consumers in the event that the parties fail to reach an agreement." http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/10/07/dispute_threatens_t... --- Ross Hosman <rosshosman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Google Goes to Washington
One of the issues Google will tackle has become news this week: Level 3 and Cogent Communications are involved in a spat that has made Web sites on each network inaccessible or very slow to users on the opposite network. Google said the government has a responsibility to monitor the Internet so events like this do not occur.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070
Ross Hosman
On 10/7/05 11:02 AM, "Ross Hosman" <rosshosman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Google Goes to Washington
One of the issues Google will tackle has become news this week: Level 3 and Cogent Communications are involved in a spat that has made Web sites on each network inaccessible or very slow to users on the opposite network. Google said the government has a responsibility to monitor the Internet so events like this do not occur.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070
Google also has a responsibility not to bite the hand that feeds it - the laise faire, unregulated Internet. Shame on them. Google is not suffering at all from this.
Ross Hosman
-- Daniel Golding
Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com> writes:
On 10/7/05 11:02 AM, "Ross Hosman" <rosshosman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Google Goes to Washington
One of the issues Google will tackle has become news this week: Level 3 and Cogent Communications are involved in a spat that has made Web sites on each network inaccessible or very slow to users on the opposite network. Google said the government has a responsibility to monitor the Internet so events like this do not occur.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070
Google also has a responsibility not to bite the hand that feeds it - the laise faire, unregulated Internet.
Shame on them. Google is not suffering at all from this.
"Don't be evil" surrenders. Film at 11. ---Rob
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Google Goes to Washington http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070
Google also has a responsibility not to bite the hand that feeds it - the laise faire, unregulated Internet.
Shame on them. Google is not suffering at all from this.
Will the same regulations Google wants, also provide better oversight into how Google operates? When Google unilaterally removes or changes the rankings of its search results, I assume a government regulatory agency will be able to issue orders and control how Google operates its bottleneck search infrastructure to provide fair, neutral and transparent, in the government agency's opinion, of google's operations?
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:26:54 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
rankings of its search results, I assume a government regulatory agency will be able to issue orders and control how Google operates its bottleneck search infrastructure to provide fair, neutral and transparent, in the government agency's opinion, of google's operations?
Go to Google. Enter "googlebombing". Follow the first link. Read what happened on June 2, 2005. Evaluate the chances of the government enforcing *actual* "fair, neutral, and transparent" operations.
Reading some of this is rather disturbing, like if we live in some kind of control freak society, where every comment is we are trying to control terrorism so we must eliminate everyones right of expression and distort every means of communication including the internet. I disagree that companies should be harmed because of elements within a given state of these United States should have any power to regulate what any corporation like google does or does not do, just because they lack any talent to compete at all and I support now more than ever this effort... Google lobbies Congress for a 'free' internet http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2143440/google-beefs-lobbying-efforts -Henry --- Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:26:54 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
rankings of its search results, I assume a government regulatory agency will be able to issue orders and control how Google operates its bottleneck search infrastructure to provide fair, neutral and transparent, in the government agency's opinion, of google's operations?
Go to Google. Enter "googlebombing". Follow the first link. Read what happened on June 2, 2005.
Evaluate the chances of the government enforcing *actual* "fair, neutral, and transparent" operations.
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 14:56 +0100, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote: <snip>
Laws only need to be enforced when there is a dispute. Laws and regulations, do not necessarily imply that enforcement action is needed. Many people and organizations comply with laws for reasons other than the existence of enforcers. For instance, an organization may feel that it is in the industry's best interests to comply with regulations and therefore it does so in order to set an example for its competitors and to attract customers.
Regulations also do not imply the involvement of governments. It is possible for industries to self-regulate such as the ARIN policies which are a product of the ARIN membership, i.e. companies who use IP addresses in their networks.
Very good point and IMHO the preferred way of dealing with these kinds of issues without the overhead of specific legislation and often stifling governmental intervention. The approach you outline below seems very plausible, with a regulatory organisation of some sort driven by the industry itself protecting both ourselves as well as our customers from idiocy like the whole Cogent/L(3) thing. It would improve both better interconnections and network coverage (and thus network quality IMO) as well as more transparency in peering and interconnection relations. Both good things for end-users and xSP's alike.
If the press would truly understand this event then they would be reporting this as a *MAJOR* flaw in the business model of the largest ISPs. The absence of regulation in Internet peering allows this type of situation to come about. It is my opinion that the network and the Internet business would both be stronger if there was some regulation of peering and IP/MPLS network interconnection.
This could be done in a couple of ways. One is to have an industry association develop self-regulation in conjunction with major end users of network services. The other would be for regulation to be imposed from without by some kind of interconnect or monitoring business like Equinix or Keynote. The analogy here is the New York Stock Exchange which is a 3rd party which monitors and interconnects the buyers and sellers of shares. In the case of Internet operators I don't foresee the need for an SEC equivalent unless operators cannot agree to disclose their peering agreements and the technical details of their interconnects.
A couple of good things can come out of this "open peering" model. One is that disclosure of the technical details, including packet drop, buffer consumption, and bandwidth, would lead to more reliable interconnects and the ability to provide quality of service SLAs across provider networks. The other possible benefit is to develop more sophisticated interconnect variants such as MPLS VPN interconnects and CDN or multicast interconnects.
--Michael Dillon
-- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
--On October 7, 2005 2:56:10 PM +0100 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Even those IXs with MPLA policy have to rely on law and courts for enforcement -- that is, those with guns.
In the United States, as in most countries, there is an explicit separation of the courts from the enforcement of laws. For instance, in the United States, the Executive Branch is in charge of the guys with guns, while the Judicial branch only deals with making decisions about the application of the laws created by the Legislative branch. The laws are executed and enforced by the Executive branch, hence the name.
Not exactly. I'll speak only of the US Federal structure, since the states each have somewhat different ways in which they manage their own collections of guys with guns. At the federal level in the US, the executive branch has (theoretically) limited charge over the guys with guns which can (theoretically easily) be overridden by the legislative branch. Additionally, the Judicial branch has a whole collection of guys with guns under their own direction (we call them "Marshalls"). In terms of getting a guy with a gun to assist you in resolving a civil dispute (aka enforcing a contract), the process is thus: 1. Demand offending party comply with contract in writing (send appropriate demand letters, etc.) 2. Ask appropriate court for relief. (file suit) 3. Serve notice to offending party (process service) 4. Prosecute your case in court (the trial) 5. If court finds in your favor, receive judgment. 6. Provide certified copy of judgment to appropriate enforcement agency (the guys with guns), if any. 7. Enforcement agency takes appropriate action based on court order. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but, in Civil cases, I think it shows that the judicial branch has a slightly broader scope than you implied.
Regulations also do not imply the involvement of governments. It is possible for industries to self-regulate such as the ARIN policies which are a product of the ARIN membership, i.e. companies who use IP addresses in their networks.
Mostly true. However, ARIN policies are a product of both the ARIN membership and the IP using community at large. It is an important and good thing that the policy process is not limited to ARIN members.
If the press would truly understand this event then they would be reporting this as a *MAJOR* flaw in the business model of the largest ISPs. The absence of regulation in Internet peering allows this type of situation to come about. It is my opinion that the network and the Internet business would both be stronger if there was some regulation of peering and IP/MPLS network interconnection.
If I had faith in any of the regulatory organizations that are likely to attempt to do this having half a clue about what they were attempting to regulate, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, given experience to date with any of the agencies I think are likely to attempt this, I suspect your cure would likely turn out worse than the current disease. Now, if 3 or 4 more large ISPs were to start approaching things the way this is going, things might get bad enough to change my mind.
A couple of good things can come out of this "open peering" model. One is that disclosure of the technical details, including packet drop, buffer consumption, and bandwidth, would lead to more reliable interconnects and the ability to provide quality of service SLAs across provider networks. The other possible benefit is to develop more sophisticated interconnect variants such as MPLS VPN interconnects and CDN or multicast interconnects.
Sure, but, the likelihood of any of the large ISPs agreeing to such a model is very close to zero, and, none of the potentially competent regulators you describe stand a chance of meaningful regulation without the participation of the large ISPs. Don't get me started on the mess that occurs when laws "Incorporate by reference" the policies of an outside regulatory agency in order to give that agency the power to regulate. Generally, this does not turn out well. (Look at the mess that is the fire code/NFPA interconnect in many jurisdictions within the US). It is my considered opinion that any text which shall have the force of law MUST meet the following criteria: + Text must be available in the public domain without charge (nominal printing costs excepted where applicable). + Text shall not be copyrighted except to the public domain. + Text, in its entirety shall have been reviewed and approved by an appropriate legislative body and any changes should require review and approval by said legislative body. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Regulations also do not imply the involvement of governments. It is possible for industries to self-regulate such as the ARIN policies which are a product of the ARIN membership, i.e. companies who use IP addresses in their networks.
Mostly true. However, ARIN policies are a product of both the ARIN membership and the IP using community at large. It is an important and good thing that the policy process is not limited to ARIN members.
I suppose the corollary to this in the world of network peering is that it will be a good thing for end-users to have some say in the peering agreements which are causing some of them grief at present. Wise self-regulation of Internet peering would find a way to incorporate the views of users who, in the end, pay everyone's bills.
If I had faith in any of the regulatory organizations that are likely to attempt to do this having half a clue about what they were attempting to regulate, I might be inclined to agree with you.
Self-regulation is still possible. Network operators meet regularly in a number of venues such as MAAWG Messaging AntiAbuse Workking Group http://www.maawg.org and our own beloved NANOG. It only takes a bit of willpower and elbow grease to start up an industry association with the aims of monitoring, regulating, improving and reporting on Internet operator interconnects.
Sure, but, the likelihood of any of the large ISPs agreeing to such a model is very close to zero,
That's where people like the politicians, and the FCC come in. When the end-users want to see change, they bother the politicians and FCC who in turn threaten to impose regulation. The wisest network operators see the writing on the wall and organize self regulation as a preemptive strike. Look at how commodities exchanges and stock exchanges publish the detailed prices of transactions. Most people have this idea that price data is "sensitive" and that one does not disclose the prices negotiated in contracts. But at the same time, the exchanges are an accepted part of the business world. Today we live in a world where peering agreements are "sensitive" and both parties are bound by NDAs. The result is that a lot of garbage is hidden from public view and this garbage does have negative impacts on the end users who rely on the Internet as a mission critical component of their business plan. Get rid of the secrecy and you will also get rid of the garbage. --Michael Dillon
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:44 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Erik Haagsman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:56 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts.
Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly.
How does replacing non-profit organisations (which most public IX'es are) with government bodies and governmental legislation improve anything...?
Government _is_ a non-profit organization, with generally broader representation.
How does replacing a representative government with a smaller feudal organization improve anything?
The current status quo has IX's in the hands of private but open organisations, run by it's members. Replacing govermental organisations by now is purely hypothetical, it's already happened and in most countries outside the US there never were government controlled IX's for IMO very good reasons, with member's freedom to formulate their own policies as number one.
Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics.
But why government regulated instead of IX member regulated...?
Because as much as it's best not to rely on thugs with guns, I really don't want the thugs with guns to be private armies.
Ah yes, we want public armies with guns to rely on, just like we rely on them at the moment regulating software patents, ISP and telco data tapping, all those nifty little ideas that make our lives so much better. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
On Oct 6, 2005, at 11:56 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced rulesets they'd have to follow. The irony of this is that it sounds both like a nightmare and a dream.
Congratulations, you've reinvented the Internet. This is exactly what we did when we built the original (NSFnet). It worked!
I would argue the NSFnet would not scale to today's Internet. Not to mention today's Internet has the added value of not sucking up 90% of NSF's budget.
We specified regional interconnection. If you wanted to connect, that's where you had to connect, and you were required to take the traffic from everybody else at the point of interconnection. No arguments.
This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts.
I'm wondering why "this partitioning" - predicted or not - is a "bad thing"?
Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly.
Strangely, the Internet has not tended toward monopoly. If you think otherwise, you have been reading too many press releases.
Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics.
Politics are a natural part of human interaction. Regulation sometimes follows. The Internet is fairly unregulated. It works fairly well - better than many regulated industries. I guess I'm missing your point? -- TTFN, patrick
participants (18)
-
Daniel Golding -
Erik Haagsman -
Hank Nussbacher -
Henry Linneweh -
J. Oquendo -
Joel Rowbottom -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Niels Bakker -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Pekka Savola -
Robert E.Seastrom -
Ross Hosman -
Sean Donelan -
Todd Vierling -
Tom Vest -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Allen Simpson