Inter-provider relations
Interesting speech from Peter Kline at NANOG today...it seems that AGIS's peering requirements are now so strict that AGIS today would not peer with AGIS of only a few months ago. Then there's Peter's comment to Ron Burleson, Cheif Operating Officer of CAIS Internet (some of you know that CAIS had a very good relationship with Net99, which continued for a while under AGIS.) "Ron, we're going to squish you like a bug." Peter is doing wonders for inter-provider relations. What do y'all say that the rest of us follow the older, more friendly model, instead of trying to kill each other? Sure, a lot of us are in competition. From today's speech, it seems that AGIS is is more competition than the rest of us. But personally, if I were a small or mid-size provider, I'd rather buy service from somebody that I've seen to be in /friendly/ competition with their peers -- that way, once I got big enough to strike out on my own, I could stay friendly with my old provider on a peer instead of a customer level. This was the intention with the Net99 deal, back when Net99 was known as "the backbone that doesn't suck." Back to the point -- like it or not, we all rely on each other and each others' networks to make the Internet happen. We can follow the AGIS model and cut each others' throats until we really are just a bunch of autonomous systems with the occasional path between, or we can interconnect -- network, to use a more laoded term. I think we should be a network. (Please note that while I am speaking only for myself, CAIS's business plan is more on the friendly side.) -- J.D. Falk <lart@cais.net> Network Operations Center <noc@cais.net> CAIS Internet Office (703) 448-4470 McLean, Virginia, USA NOC 1-888-CAIS-NOC
Not that I agree at all with AGIS's new stance on peering and market domination but we have to understand that the "friendly" Internet has long since past. Every major provider now has very strict provisions for peering. These are obviously in their best interests for whatever reasons. Frankly, I'd rather have straight-forward peering requirements and policies than CAIS's lack of policy and cooperation. We made an initial peering request with CAIS, who is only on mae-east to the best of my knowledge, almost 3 months ago. No peering has yet been established, nor has any contract been received. Until CAIS gets their act together with new peerings I think it is rather hypocritical to be attacking AGIS for at least having a policy with the same end result as yours. Robert Bowman Exodus Communications Inc.
Interesting speech from Peter Kline at NANOG today...it seems that AGIS's peering requirements are now so strict that AGIS today would not peer with AGIS of only a few months ago. Then there's Peter's comment to Ron Burleson, Cheif Operating Officer of CAIS Internet (some of you know that CAIS had a very good relationship with Net99, which continued for a while under AGIS.) "Ron, we're going to squish you like a bug." Peter is doing wonders for inter-provider relations. What do y'all say that the rest of us follow the older, more friendly model, instead of trying to kill each other? Sure, a lot of us are in competition. From today's speech, it seems that AGIS is is more competition than the rest of us. But personally, if I were a small or mid-size provider, I'd rather buy service from somebody that I've seen to be in /friendly/ competition with their peers -- that way, once I got big enough to strike out on my own, I could stay friendly with my old provider on a peer instead of a customer level. This was the intention with the Net99 deal, back when Net99 was known as "the backbone that doesn't suck."
Back to the point -- like it or not, we all rely on each other and each others' networks to make the Internet happen. We can follow the AGIS model and cut each others' throats until we really are just a bunch of autonomous systems with the occasional path between, or we can interconnect -- network, to use a more laoded term. I think we should be a network.
(Please note that while I am speaking only for myself, CAIS's business plan is more on the friendly side.)
-- J.D. Falk <lart@cais.net> Network Operations Center <noc@cais.net> CAIS Internet Office (703) 448-4470 McLean, Virginia, USA NOC 1-888-CAIS-NOC
Not that I agree at all with AGIS's new stance on peering and market domination but we have to understand that the "friendly" Internet has long since past. [..other good points elided..]
Maybe I am the only person in a position like the one I'm in, and/or maybe I'm incredibly naive. But the Internet escaped from the lab while we were all collectively still making up our minds what it was or should be. Now there are billions of dollars invested in it and more billions being made from it -- and that's a good thing in principle since the world clearly did need something like the Internet and I'm glad they didn't end up with ISO or Appletalk or IPX or XNS or DECnet or SNA. (Not that any of those could have gotten us even this far, but I'm off my topic with that.) We all *need* the cooperation of people who at some level are competitors. As we're discovering by means of http://www.vix.com/spam/, a lot of folks are willing to endure complaints from their customers about less-than-full connectivity rather than endure other, louder complaints about mailboxes and newsgroups full of garbage. And, when we all collectively decide to field test the latest greatest Cisco download, we get _nowhere_ if we find and execute workarounds in our own net while letting our "competitors" burn. Some problems require "competing" NOCs to share "private" information without benefit of an NDA in order to get a cross-AS problem solved. It's always been clear to us that we'd have to steal eachother's customers and market aggressively (even if it means slamming a competitor) and all the "business as usual" tactics that mankind has honed over its thousands of years of commercial experience. And it's always been clear that at some deeper and more technical level, we had all better pull together or we won't have any peers (either because they can't stay up long enough, or because they don't trust us -- the result is the same). I didn't go to NANOG this time so I didn't hear what Peter said. If it was in the spirit of "we'll gradually take all your customers and put you out of business", I would have said this was unlikely and a little impolite but not out of character (sorry, Peter, but it's Zeus's honest truth). If on the other hand it was in the spirit of "our NOC isn't going to talk to your NOC any more, and we won't help you track down folks who SYN-bomb you via us, and we may just SYN-bomb you ourselves" then I must be missing one hell of a NANOG.
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
Not that I agree at all with AGIS's new stance on peering and market domination but we have to understand that the "friendly" Internet has long since past. Every major provider now has very strict provisions for peering. These are obviously in their best interests for whatever reasons.
In practice, I have found this to not be true, unless you define "major provider" as one who *has* strict peering provisions....:) Generally I have found most providers very willing to peer at Mae-East and Mae-West, after all, that's why they spend the money to connect there. The problem is getting their attention. The folks who make the peering decisions and implement them are usually the busiest folks in the organization (not because of peering decisions, they usually have lots of other (better?) things to do.) What would help, would be a way to reduce the effort involved in setting up these peerings. At the DC Nanog, I proposed a Multilateral Universal Peering arrangement, consisting of an agreement and a few changes to the RAs, specifically in the area of macros or include statments. It would work this way: any provider who wished to (and met the criteria?), could sign the agreement and with a few changes to the RA macro, be peered thru the RAs to all the other signatories. The model today requires N*(N-1) discussions, with N approaching 100 at Mae-East, this is a waste of resources. Unfortunately the needed software changes to the RAs is not yet ready, but once it is, I plan to try and get this effort started. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By major providers, I mean ANS, Agis (questioning this one now), UUNET, MCI, Sprint, BBN, etc. Not the 60+ on mae-east. All the above mentioned have policies, or lack of policies but at least claim to have them. While I agree in theory with the MLPA concept, the only "headache" it truly alleviates is that of getting any contract signed. It doesn't mystically configure the direct peering or the peering through the routing arbiter. While it may be a good step for the regionals, we backed away from it on the PB-NAP (after pushing and pushing for it) because it left us feeling a bit out of control... A centralized database, wherein all contacts from an ISP/NSP are kept (new peering contacts, admin, techie, etc) along with current peering policy seems like something that would have alleviated hundreds of hours for me.. Maybe the tooth fairy will deliver it someday.. Rob
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
Not that I agree at all with AGIS's new stance on peering and market domination but we have to understand that the "friendly" Internet has long since past. Every major provider now has very strict provisions for peering. These are obviously in their best interests for whatever reasons.
In practice, I have found this to not be true, unless you define "major provider" as one who *has* strict peering provisions....:) Generally I have found most providers very willing to peer at Mae-East and Mae-West, after all, that's why they spend the money to connect there. The problem is getting their attention. The folks who make the peering decisions and implement them are usually the busiest folks in the organization (not because of peering decisions, they usually have lots of other (better?) things to do.)
What would help, would be a way to reduce the effort involved in setting up these peerings. At the DC Nanog, I proposed a Multilateral Universal Peering arrangement, consisting of an agreement and a few changes to the RAs, specifically in the area of macros or include statments. It would work this way: any provider who wished to (and met the criteria?), could sign the agreement and with a few changes to the RA macro, be peered thru the RAs to all the other signatories. The model today requires N*(N-1) discussions, with N approaching 100 at Mae-East, this is a waste of resources. Unfortunately the needed software changes to the RAs is not yet ready, but once it is, I plan to try and get this effort started.
Best Regards, Robert Laughlin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
While I agree in theory with the MLPA concept, the only "headache" it truly alleviates is that of getting any contract signed. It doesn't mystically configure the direct peering or the peering through the routing arbiter. -snip- A centralized database, wherein all contacts from an ISP/NSP are kept (new peering contacts, admin, techie, etc) along with current peering policy seems like something that would have alleviated hundreds of hours for me.. Maybe the tooth fairy will deliver it someday..
My MUP (multilateral universal peering) concept is a bit different from the MLPA. I am including a software change that *does* establish peering thru the route arbiters between all signatories as well as the contact/informational database you seek. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A centralized database, wherein all contacts from an ISP/NSP are kept (new peering contacts, admin, techie, etc) along with current peering policy seems like something that would have alleviated hundreds of hours for me.. Maybe the tooth fairy will deliver it someday..
Sounds like what the IRR (is supposed to) deliver. Of course, you have to ask yourself... Is my data correct in the IRR? And then a quick turn through ROE - the route object editor and RtConfig will allow anyone to crank out a correctly churned cisco config in seconds. No need for an MLPA, No being out of control... with the minor exception that your intended peer has not entered thier peering policies into the IRR correctly. Of course this can be checked with ROE. Keeps the phone calls to adjacent peers routing geeks down to a managable level... :) --bill
What would help, would be a way to reduce the effort involved in setting up these peerings. At the DC Nanog, I proposed a Multilateral Universal Peering arrangement, consisting of an agreement and a few changes to the RAs, specifically in the area of macros or include statments. It would work this way: any provider who wished to (and met the criteria?), could sign the agreement and with a few changes to the RA macro, be peered thru the RAs to all the other signatories. The model today requires N*(N-1) discussions, with N approaching 100 at Mae-East, this is a waste of resources. Unfortunately the needed software changes to the RAs is not yet ready, but once it is, I plan to try and get this effort started.
Best Regards, Robert Laughlin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MLPA: _MultiLateral_Peering_Araigments_ are supported in the RA Route Servers. There is an existant MLPA process in place at both the AADS and PB Naps. --bill
Remember that it is almost a year since Peter Kline told the community that it needed LAWYERS to whip it into shape and that AGIS would provide all the lawyers needed.
From a press release on the AGIS web server http://www.agis.net/press17.htm:
Press release: Little Rock, AR: October 23, 1996-- ALLTEL Corporation will invest **up to** $12.5 million and become a minority investor in Apex Global Information Services, Inc. (AGIS), one of only six global providers of Internet access, Joe T. Ford, chairman and CEO of ALLTEL, has announced. [Cook: emphasis added.] AGIS is currently serving more than 200 cities in the United States with points of presence (POPs) for Internet access, and has dedicated service available in almost 50 countries. In addition, the company provides backbone services to more than 700 of the estimated 3000 Internet service providers (ISPs) around the world. Cook: 700 isps? Gosh. That's impressive. Anyone got any data on when they overtook MCI, Sprint, and UUNET in market share? Leased line access to almost 50 countries round the world? Any one seen the map of their global network? Anyone got a list of their foreign pops? Or are they claiming LDDS lines and POPs in this country and abroad as though they (AGIS) owned them all. Press release: "This venture is an investment by ALLTEL in the communications link of the future," Ford continued. "ALLTEL is making this investment because AGIS is one of only six global providers of Internet access. Cook: six global providers: Hmmm. Might they be referring to Sprint, AGIS UUNET, PSI, MCI, and ANS? The so called gang or club of six that a year ago were the exclusive direct peers at all the major exchanges? If they are, then, by process of elimnation, BBN is not a global provider -which I think is news to BBN, nor is AT&T, nor is Advantis, nor is Compuserve, nor are a lot of other major players with more than a fresh12.5 million behind them. Gee. I wonder if BBN realizes that AGIS has relegated it to second rank status? Or perhaps they are referring to those global providers who are beginning to move most of their traffic through private inter connects - and in so doing are becoming a new internet apex? In this case they are not even one of the five let alone six. Here the five are MCI, Sprint, BBN, UUNET and ANS. I have been talking to a lot of sources, none of which is aware of AGIS having any private Interconnects with these five. Press release: It is these providers that have management control of the Internet routing tables, which are the directories that identify the location of all Internet users. Cook: An enormously inaccurate statement. I would surmise that if any six providers had the kind of control being talked about, there would have been a brouhaha on mail lists worse than that directed against NSI, and that there would be anti-trust action under way. Of course they also tell you how to get to other routers and not a thing about the location of the several tens of millions of individual internet users. Of course this is a press release and those who place too great a trust in the overall accuracy of press releases are likely to be disappointed. In my opinion however, the general cluelessness displayed by this press release reaches new heights. It leaves me to surmise that the folk at ALLTEL know not a lot about the internet. It would be interesting to review the due dilligence that was excercised in putting this agreement together. For example did anyone at ALLTELL ask for archives of agislist@interstice.com which was started in January by agis customers complaining about agis service? A very recent post from this mail list follows. Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Veggy Vinny <richardc@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> To: agislist@inter2.interstice.com Subject: Hi Hi everyone, My name is Vince Poy, and I'm the Unix Networking Operations person for GaiaNet.Net located in Beverly Hills, California connected to PBI.Net which uses AGIS.Net, we've been having major problems with lag with AGIS.Net and was wondering if anyone else can share their experiences... Press release: concluding with a flourish: AGIS provides Internet access to millions of users via an extensive customer base of RBOCs, content providers, large corporations and ISPs. Cook: it would be entertaining to see how they derived these figures. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com For case study of MercerNet & TIIAP induced harm to local community http://pobox.com/cook/mercernet.html ************************************************************************ On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, JDF wrote:
Interesting speech from Peter Kline at NANOG today...it seems that AGIS's peering requirements are now so strict that AGIS today would not peer with AGIS of only a few months ago. Then there's Peter's comment to Ron Burleson, Cheif Operating Officer of CAIS Internet (some of you know that CAIS had a very good relationship with Net99, which continued for a while under AGIS.) "Ron, we're going to squish you like a bug." Peter is doing wonders for inter-provider relations. What do y'all say that the rest of us follow the older, more friendly model, instead of trying to kill each other? Sure, a lot of us are in competition. From today's speech, it seems that AGIS is is more competition than the rest of us. But personally, if I were a small or mid-size provider, I'd rather buy service from somebody that I've seen to be in /friendly/ competition with their peers -- that way, once I got big enough to strike out on my own, I could stay friendly with my old provider on a peer instead of a customer level. This was the intention with the Net99 deal, back when Net99 was known as "the backbone that doesn't suck."
Back to the point -- like it or not, we all rely on each other and each others' networks to make the Internet happen. We can follow the AGIS model and cut each others' throats until we really are just a bunch of autonomous systems with the occasional path between, or we can interconnect -- network, to use a more laoded term. I think we should be a network.
(Please note that while I am speaking only for myself, CAIS's business plan is more on the friendly side.)
-- J.D. Falk <lart@cais.net> Network Operations Center <noc@cais.net> CAIS Internet Office (703) 448-4470 McLean, Virginia, USA NOC 1-888-CAIS-NOC
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Gordon Cook wrote:
them. Gee. I wonder if BBN realizes that AGIS has relegated it to second rank status?
Well of course they have. According to the peering policy announced today BBN wouldn't qualify as a new AGIS peer. (Neither would UUnet, PSI, or ANS.) -BD P.S. - At least AGIS came out and said what the deal is. That is commendable.
them. Gee. I wonder if BBN realizes that AGIS has relegated it to second rank status?
Well of course they have. According to the peering policy announced today BBN wouldn't qualify as a new AGIS peer. (Neither would UUnet, PSI, or ANS.)
Every big provider makes exceptions to rules when it's in their best interest to do so. -- Dave Siegel Sr. Network Engineer, RTD Systems & Networking (520)623-9663 x130 Network Consultant -- Regional/National NSPs dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP, http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Gordon Cook wrote:
them. Gee. I wonder if BBN realizes that AGIS has relegated it to second rank status?
Well of course they have. According to the peering policy announced today BBN wouldn't qualify as a new AGIS peer. (Neither would UUnet, PSI, or ANS.)
-BD
P.S. - At least AGIS came out and said what the deal is. That is commendable.
Any provider that does not recognize the value of bilateral, no-settlement peering anywhere that its cost-effective for both parties (ie: if you have traffic destined for me, get it on MY network where I'm being paid to carry it and let ME figure the rest out!) deserves what they get. Their customers are the ones who should start doing that educating. By moving to someone else. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 23 Analog Prefixes, 13 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
participants (9)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Bradley Dunn -
Dave Siegel -
Gordon Cook -
JDF -
Karl Denninger -
Paul A Vixie -
Robert Bowman -
Robert Laughlin