How about if everyone just joins the BPP? Mark -----Original Message----- From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> To: nanog@merit.edu <nanog@merit.edu> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 4:49 PM Subject: Re: BBN/GTEI |On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Dave Rand wrote: | |> Traffic is an obvious one. Is that measured in packets per second, or bits |> per second? | |Bits, not packets. And I think that aggregate octets per hour or per day |is a more reasonable way to measure it. | |> Since, in the USA (where the vast majority of traffic |> originates) circuits are provisioned as full duplex, _does it matter_ which |> direction the bits are flowing in? | |Yes. In and out should be measured separately. | |> Assuming it does matter, in which direction does the value flow? | |Here's the complex part. The value is not expressed in bits and it depends |on the destination within the peer's network. I am assuming that we can |map the IPv4 address space by city and that we can set some value to each |intercity link. This means that a stream of bits entering a peers network |in San Jose with a final destination in San Jose would be free. But if the |stream of bits was destined for Santa Cruz there would be a small cost. |And if it was destined for Sacramento there would be a somewhat larger |cost because Sacramento is further. | |> Another one is route-miles. A provider with 1,000 route-miles of circuits |> 'obviously' has less value than a provider with 10,000 route-miles of |> circuits. How does speed of those circuits factor in? Perhaps the metric |> should be DS0-route-miles (64K-circuits per mile). Of course, one WDM dark |> fiber run of 250 miles would nuke this metric. | |Route-miles between cities might be the metric for determining the cost |multiplier. Of course, this would assume some standard city-to-city |mileage and a standard boundary, rather like a LATA boundary, that would |make Santa Clara considered to be equivalent to a San Jose destination |since it is only a couple of miles from San Jose. | |> How about dollar value of the network, in total bills paid to the telcos? |> Does this mean that networks that are owned by telcos have an almost-zero |> cost, or an "full retail price" accounting cost? | |I think that we need some standard way to calculate such costs. Since we |are discussing how to account for regional transit I think that one way |would be for the peer who would receive the payment to publish to a |pricelist to their peers for city-to-city transit and use this pricelist. |The arrangement would give the peers the option to buy circuits from the |other peer at that rate. We would use some formula based upon how much |traffic a reasonably standard intercity circuit could carry to determine |the rate per bit over that link. | |> Are networks that |> have reciprical agreements with telcos unduely penalized, or do they |> benefit? | |I would expect that they would neither benefit or be penalized. | |> Another good metric might be number of customers. | |There is too much variation between customers for this to work. | |> How about number of network advertisments, or routes? | |Same thing, too much variation, i.e. big aggregates and little ones. | |> We haven't even got to the hard points, which is *how much* each of |> these metrics are 'worth'. | |Agreed. This is likely going to require an industry council to come up |with the metrics and algorithms and specific numbers. Does this sound |suspiciously like regulated peering? Yes. It is regulated peering but my |intention is for the providers to work out the regulations within the |industry and only have government involvement on a review basis. For |instance such a council would need to satisfy the government that it was |not acting in an antitrust fashion and they would likely review this on a |regular basis. | |> We also haven't begun to address sites like gatekeeper.dec.com, |> ftp.cdrom.com, and the like. Nor networks with plently of suck bandwidth |> (but not much content) such as MSN and AOL. | |I think that this suggestion addresses all sorts of asymmetry because I |believe that the bottom line is that it costs more to transfer a given |number of bits over a larger distance than a smaller one and that this |cost can be quantified. | |> It's harder than it looks on the surface, folks. Clues appreciated. | |I agree with this. However when I look ahead to a world in which the IP |network is the only data communications infrastructure carrying voice, |video, web, email, etc., then I think that the hard work must be done to |create a scalable peering system. If we succeed at this then we will never |have to go through the pain that the telephone network experienced with |the forced AT&T government regulated monopoly followed by its forced |dissolution still under government regulation. It is my opinion that the |only way out from the specter of increased government regulation of the |Internet is to pre-empt government action by working out a system that |would be considered fair under existing antitrust laws. If we can go a |significant way down the path to such a system, even if we have not yet |implemented it, then I believe we will be able to secure support from the |government for a self-regulated industry peering council. | |But that's just my opinion. I don't have all the answers. | |-- |Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting |Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com |Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com | |