If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues, please drop me an email, or call. Dave Rand +1 408 254-7111 -- Dave Rand dlr@bungi.com http://www.bungi.com
If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues, please drop me an email, or call.
I would like to communicate openly and publicly about this. What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what their rationale is behind it. That is, a public explanation other than the all-too-obvious "We're greedy. Welcome to the business world. We're not going to change our minds, so shut the fuck up and buy some transit, you dumb suckers." Though I must admit that what I've heard may be biased, as I've heard from the opressees moreso than the opressors, this sounds like an issue driven by sheer stupidity and capitalism on BBN's behalf. Certainly does not seem to be in their best interest, or the best interest of the Internet as a whole. Of course, I could be mistaken, which is why I'd like some word from BBN. Rather than limit this issue to within the confines of private communication, I would like to see it carried out as a very vocal and lively public one. That way, the general public will be able to make an educated decision regarding whether or not to purchase transit from BBN/GTE, in light of this. Regards, Adam
The issue seems to be better adressed as follows: Should "Tier 1" providers insist on private peering rather than public? It's a complicated issue, as there is zero fabric loss across a customer/private interconnect circuit. The ability to deliver such traffic provides a better service with only one place to put the blame, on a full circuit, rather than a congested exchange point, where you can blame the exchange point operator, and both providers involved for overcomitting their network capacity into the exchange point. It provides a much more managable connection model as to provide the best quality of service because of the state of the exchange fabrics. The question that looms then is should they discount their connection if it will be peering-only rather than normal transit? That is a bit more complicated issue and needs to be adressed between you and the provider(s) in question for your invididual case. All BBN/GTE, and i'm sure every other network provider out there are concerned about is the ability to exchange traffic with the least amount of loss. If none of their customers complain, you're less likeley to get anything. Host the next hot web site on the internet, the yahoo,infoseek, espn.com,cnn.com's. those will get you more notice. If you're not going to dump more than 10Mbps of traffic shared across all the points, I would just buy a connection. You're obviously sending this traffic somewhere now. - Jared On Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 09:39:46AM -0400, Adam Rothschild wrote:
If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues, please drop me an email, or call.
I would like to communicate openly and publicly about this.
What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what their rationale is behind it.
That is, a public explanation other than the all-too-obvious "We're greedy. Welcome to the business world. We're not going to change our minds, so shut the fuck up and buy some transit, you dumb suckers."
Though I must admit that what I've heard may be biased, as I've heard from the opressees moreso than the opressors, this sounds like an issue driven by sheer stupidity and capitalism on BBN's behalf. Certainly does not seem to be in their best interest, or the best interest of the Internet as a whole. Of course, I could be mistaken, which is why I'd like some word from BBN.
Rather than limit this issue to within the confines of private communication, I would like to see it carried out as a very vocal and lively public one. That way, the general public will be able to make an educated decision regarding whether or not to purchase transit from BBN/GTE, in light of this.
Regards, Adam
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Adam Rothschild wrote:
If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues, please drop me an email, or call.
I would like to communicate openly and publicly about this.
What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what their rationale is behind it.
You know what is behind it, you mentioned it two paragraphs below, capitalism. BBN can make more money this way. The first thing they teach you in Business 100 is that the purpose of a business is to make a profit. BBN can make more profits by not peering with every ISP who wants to peer with them.
That is, a public explanation other than the all-too-obvious "We're greedy. Welcome to the business world. We're not going to change our minds, so shut the fuck up and buy some transit, you dumb suckers."
Well they may give some lame technical reason like our routers were overloaded or something, but I doubt it.
Though I must admit that what I've heard may be biased, as I've heard from the opressees moreso than the opressors, this sounds like an issue driven by sheer stupidity and capitalism on BBN's behalf. Certainly does not seem to be in their best interest, or the best interest of the Internet as a whole. Of course, I could be mistaken, which is why I'd like some word from BBN.
Well basically you need to think of it like this. If the providers that are getting cut were actually "peers" of BBN, then BBN would feal the pain, in fact they are not "peers". BBN can cut them off their network and will not feal a thing. BBN customers will still be able to reach the cut ISPs from their transit providers. If the providers were "peer" then when BBN tried to cut them they both would feal the pain and BBN would most likley turn it back up in a hour or so.
Rather than limit this issue to within the confines of private communication, I would like to see it carried out as a very vocal and lively public one. That way, the general public will be able to make an educated decision regarding whether or not to purchase transit from BBN/GTE, in light of this.
Well, in the past this stuff was resolved under NDAs. If you don't see a lot of ISPs talking then most likely BBN just had them sign a NDA and worked something out.
Regards, Adam
<> Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net -- "No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength." - Psalm 33:16
Well basically you need to think of it like this. If the providers that are getting cut were actually "peers" of BBN, then BBN would feal the pain, in fact they are not "peers". BBN can cut them off their network and will not feal a thing. BBN customers will still be able to reach the cut ISPs from their transit providers. If the providers were "peer" then when BBN tried to cut them they both would feal the pain and BBN would most likley turn it back up in a hour or so.
I was under the impression that, by this definition, BBN considered Exodus to be a "peer". Is this not the case?
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Nathan Stratton wrote:
What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what their rationale is behind it.
Here is a news story from yesterday with quotes from John Curran http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980810h.html
You know what is behind it, you mentioned it two paragraphs below, capitalism. BBN can make more money this way.
That is yet to be seen. If this move reduces the quality of connectivity for their customers they could lose a lot of business too. -- 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
Depending on who gives in first, and when. If Exodus breaks down and purchases connectivity from someone to get to BBN, then obviously is will not effect BBN in the slightest. If Exodus buys BBN routes from someone other than BBN (sprint, mci), then it gets quite funny; more PX's or MAE's get overloaded with traffic that was privately between Exodus and BBN, and BBN has caused one of its competitors (MCI/Sprint/whoever Exodus ends up buying from (if they do)) to gain more revunue flow. Considering that BBN is the one who cut peering with Exodus, I presume Exodus will have a bad taste in thier mouth, and not buy from BBN (I could guess that BBN assumed this also). With all this in mond, BBN, IMHO, made a horrendously poor choice. BBN, turning peering into a boys club.
That is yet to be seen. If this move reduces the quality of connectivity for their customers they could lose a lot of business too.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
How is this differnt than the case with Sprint? At 12:59 PM 8/12/98 -0400, alex@nac.net wrote:
Depending on who gives in first, and when.
If Exodus breaks down and purchases connectivity from someone to get to BBN, then obviously is will not effect BBN in the slightest. If Exodus buys BBN routes from someone other than BBN (sprint, mci), then it gets quite funny; more PX's or MAE's get overloaded with traffic that was privately between Exodus and BBN, and BBN has caused one of its competitors (MCI/Sprint/whoever Exodus ends up buying from (if they do)) to gain more revunue flow.
Considering that BBN is the one who cut peering with Exodus, I presume Exodus will have a bad taste in thier mouth, and not buy from BBN (I could guess that BBN assumed this also).
With all this in mond, BBN, IMHO, made a horrendously poor choice.
BBN, turning peering into a boys club.
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
I believe BBN was pressured by GTEI to do this and could isolate BBN and GETI from peering with the internetwork, from a severe market backlash from decisions deemed harmful to the fabric of the internet itself, I am dismayed at this greed. Henry R. Linneweh alex@nac.net wrote:
Depending on who gives in first, and when.
If Exodus breaks down and purchases connectivity from someone to get to BBN, then obviously is will not effect BBN in the slightest. If Exodus buys BBN routes from someone other than BBN (sprint, mci), then it gets quite funny; more PX's or MAE's get overloaded with traffic that was privately between Exodus and BBN, and BBN has caused one of its competitors (MCI/Sprint/whoever Exodus ends up buying from (if they do)) to gain more revunue flow.
Considering that BBN is the one who cut peering with Exodus, I presume Exodus will have a bad taste in thier mouth, and not buy from BBN (I could guess that BBN assumed this also).
With all this in mond, BBN, IMHO, made a horrendously poor choice.
BBN, turning peering into a boys club.
That is yet to be seen. If this move reduces the quality of connectivity for their customers they could lose a lot of business too.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- ¢4i1å
Yo Alex! On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 alex@nac.net wrote:
With all this in mond, BBN, IMHO, made a horrendously poor choice. Yes. Their service quality will continue to fall.
BBN, turning peering into a boys club. Nope, they just shortend the membership list again.
RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176
Thus spake Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> on Wed, Aug 12, 1998:
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Nathan Stratton wrote:
What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what their rationale is behind it.
Here is a news story from yesterday with quotes from John Curran http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980810h.html
You know what is behind it, you mentioned it two paragraphs below, capitalism. BBN can make more money this way.
That is yet to be seen. If this move reduces the quality of connectivity for their customers they could lose a lot of business too.
Hey! I'm an ISP too! When do I get my free BBN peering??!?! You mean I've been paying for BBN all this time? Jeez, I feel dumb...
From the article: "It appears that the result of this action will harm BBN and its customers substantially more than it will harm our customers," said Exodus President Ellen Hancock in an Aug. 5 letter to customers.
This statement is deluded to say the least. BBN peers with most other major backbone providers, and they have one of the fastest, most reliable networks in the world. Say Ms. Hancock ends up buying transit from Digex or UUnet. Under most current hot-potato routing schemes, that carrier will drop the packet at the closest BBN peering point, and the web page will continue on its merry way through BBN to the BBN customer. Three or four more hops added at the max. It probably wouldn't even be noticeable. If she buys transit from a not-so-well-connected provider, crappy performance will be universal and not confined to BBN, ass-uming there's no spiteful routing policies inserted on her end for BBN customers. (Route all BBN-bound packets through the BRI link to spitoon.net?) Somehow I doubt that will be the case. Exodus *does* face some hard business decisions. Unfortunately, blaming BBN isn't going to do much to help Exodus. Capitalists trashing capitalism? Please. -- John Butler, Network Engineer, Mindspring Enterprises Operations Dept web toys at http://www.mindspring.com/~fez mailto:fez@mindspring.net ************************ Beware of people who "celebrate" themselves.
Amazing, a BBN supporter.
Thus spake Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> on Wed, Aug 12, 1998:
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Nathan Stratton wrote:
What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what their rationale is behind it.
Here is a news story from yesterday with quotes from John Curran http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980810h.html
You know what is behind it, you mentioned it two paragraphs below, capitalism. BBN can make more money this way.
That is yet to be seen. If this move reduces the quality of connectivity for their customers they could lose a lot of business too.
Hey! I'm an ISP too! When do I get my free BBN peering??!?! You mean I've been paying for BBN all this time? Jeez, I feel dumb...
From the article: "It appears that the result of this action will harm BBN and its customers substantially more than it will harm our customers," said Exodus President Ellen Hancock in an Aug. 5 letter to customers.
This statement is deluded to say the least. BBN peers with most other major backbone providers, and they have one of the fastest, most reliable networks in the world. Say Ms. Hancock ends up buying transit from Digex or UUnet. Under most current hot-potato routing schemes, that carrier will drop the packet at the closest BBN peering point, and the web page will continue on its merry way through BBN to the BBN customer. Three or four more hops added at the max. It probably wouldn't even be noticeable.
If she buys transit from a not-so-well-connected provider, crappy performance will be universal and not confined to BBN, ass-uming there's no spiteful routing policies inserted on her end for BBN customers. (Route all BBN-bound packets through the BRI link to spitoon.net?) Somehow I doubt that will be the case.
You forgot one circumstance, the most likely in this situation... Exodus isn't going to buy any transit. Nor are the other folks that BBN is trying to cut off. Let's face the facts, BBN is only 1.85% of my traffic. By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic. Lots of luck. We actually see a massively inverted benefit scale in this particular situation.
Exodus *does* face some hard business decisions. Unfortunately, blaming BBN isn't going to do much to help Exodus. Capitalists trashing capitalism? Please.
There will be no "blame". BBN's customers, when they can't reach 30 of the top 100 web sites in the US will take care of that for us. Since your multihomed through UUNET, you won't have the pleasure of disconnectivity and therefore, nothing to complain about. And, in actuality, the business decision is quite easy--BBN isn't nearly enough of a player to pull a stunt like this. Obviously their egos are larger than their network, but egos don't route packets very well. Rob Exodus
-- John Butler, Network Engineer, Mindspring Enterprises Operations Dept web toys at http://www.mindspring.com/~fez mailto:fez@mindspring.net ************************ Beware of people who "celebrate" themselves.
At 07:49 AM 19980813 -0700, Robert Bowman wrote:
You forgot one circumstance, the most likely in this situation... Exodus isn't going to buy any transit. Nor are the other folks that BBN is trying to cut off. Let's face the facts, BBN is only 1.85% of my traffic. By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic. Lots of luck. We actually see a massively inverted benefit scale in this particular situation.
I'm not speaking for the company here. When I do that, I wear a different hat. Are you seriously under the impression that 10-30% of BBN traffic is sent to Exodus? And that 10% of BBN's traffic equals 1.85% of Exodus's? Boggle. -dsr- Dan Ritter dsr@bbn.com ISE New England Region 617.873.4514 Epoch ends on Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038 EST.
I am referring to output of Exodus traffic relative to input of BBN traffic, not vice versa. Exodus consumes very little of BBN's output (Exodus input). Isn't that the "supposed" problem? Our private exchange statistics show it very simply, if BBN disconnects, it will drop our traffic by 1.85%. I cannot speak for certain about BBN's traffic input as an aggregate, that is why I stated below that we are estimating. Other studies I have seen show BBN as a 3% consumption (which would probably include multihomed). This is from a completely different network. If that particular network cares to show the statistics relative to BBN's consumption of content, that is their decision. Rob exodus
At 07:49 AM 19980813 -0700, Robert Bowman wrote:
You forgot one circumstance, the most likely in this situation... Exodus isn't going to buy any transit. Nor are the other folks that BBN is trying to cut off. Let's face the facts, BBN is only 1.85% of my traffic. By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic. Lots of luck. We actually see a massively inverted benefit scale in this particular situation.
I'm not speaking for the company here. When I do that, I wear a different hat.
Are you seriously under the impression that 10-30% of BBN traffic is sent to Exodus?
And that 10% of BBN's traffic equals 1.85% of Exodus's?
Boggle.
-dsr-
Dan Ritter dsr@bbn.com ISE New England Region 617.873.4514 Epoch ends on Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038 EST.
At 12:10 PM 19980813 -0700, Robert Bowman wrote:
I am referring to output of Exodus traffic relative to input of BBN traffic, not vice versa. Exodus consumes very little of BBN's output (Exodus input). Isn't that the "supposed" problem? Our private exchange statistics show it very simply, if BBN disconnects, it will drop our traffic by 1.85%. I cannot speak for certain about BBN's traffic input as an aggregate, that is why I stated below that we are estimating.
off. Let's face the facts, BBN is only 1.85% of my traffic. By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic. Lots of luck. We actually see a massively inverted benefit scale in this particular situation.
It seems intuitively reasonable to me that 1.85% of Exodus input comes from BBN. No arguments there. I would like to know where the "By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic." sentence comes from. Are you suggesting that 10-30% of BBN's total output goes to Exodus? Or that 10-30% of Exodus output goes to BBN? The first scenario is ridiculous. The second scenario is possible, but I would suspect it is closer to 10% than 30%. -dsr- ...Still not speaking for the company...
Please read my prior statement below, but I must not have been clear. I'll restate: 1.85% of our TOTAL OUTPUT goes to BBN. We estimate that to be between 10-30% of BBN's TOTAL INPUT. I have no idea what our total input from BBN is, but I'd imagine it to be the same percentage, but a hell of a lot lower bandwidth (as our aggregate input is extremely low). If I was a larger input from BBN, supposedly we woulldn't be in this mess.. The 10-30% range is a pure estimate based upon the number of top web sites that use our network, the relative percentage of input we are with other ISPs, and some guessing work. Hence, the wide range and the "estimate" disclaimer. BBN is the only one that can tell us what percentage of the total input traffic is Exodus. Of course, you should probably take into the consideration the amount of bits dropped into /dev/null because of the rate-shaping BBN instituted on the pxs. We did. Rob Speaking for the company.
At 12:10 PM 19980813 -0700, Robert Bowman wrote:
I am referring to output of Exodus traffic relative to input of BBN traffic, not vice versa. Exodus consumes very little of BBN's output (Exodus input). Isn't that the "supposed" problem? Our private exchange statistics show it very simply, if BBN disconnects, it will drop our traffic by 1.85%. I cannot speak for certain about BBN's traffic input as an aggregate, that is why I stated below that we are estimating.
off. Let's face the facts, BBN is only 1.85% of my traffic. By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic. Lots of luck. We actually see a massively inverted benefit scale in this particular situation.
It seems intuitively reasonable to me that 1.85% of Exodus input comes from BBN. No arguments there. I would like to know where the "By all accounts, we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic." sentence comes from. Are you suggesting that 10-30% of BBN's total output goes to Exodus? Or that 10-30% of Exodus output goes to BBN?
The first scenario is ridiculous. The second scenario is possible, but I would suspect it is closer to 10% than 30%.
-dsr-
...Still not speaking for the company...
I'm sorry, I must be missing something here. Let's assume for a minute that the following figures provided by exodus are even close to correct:
1.85% of our TOTAL OUTPUT goes to BBN. We estimate that to be between 10-30% of BBN's TOTAL INPUT.
The way I'm reading this is that if the BBN <-> Exodus link is severed, Exodus looses 1.85 percent of their hits. Not an appreciable dent. On the other hand, BBN's customers can't get to 10%-30% of the web content they want. Now, who should be paying who? I'll tell you right now that if I was BBN, I'd remember that I'm getting 10%-30% of the traffic that my customers want from exodus, and I'd definately not want to piss them off (neither my customers nor exodus). After all, it's the BBN customers REQUESTING the data from exodus, not the other way around. The fact that exodus is willing to carry the traffic cross-country both ways and pay for the circuit costs between them and bbn seems almost over-courteous to me. - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
While byte flow is important for economic reasons (who carries the traffic how far), number of tcp connections and % would be better for measuring the number of customers that will be effected.
I am referring to output of Exodus traffic relative to input of BBN traffic,
On Thu, Aug 13, 1998 at 07:49:06AM -0700, Robert Bowman wrote:
And, in actuality, the business decision is quite easy--BBN isn't nearly enough of a player to pull a stunt like this. Obviously their egos are larger than their network, but egos don't route packets very well.
I can't imagine why they might have thought they would be... UUnet apparently isn't; and their backbone hauls a _lot_ more bytes than BBN's does... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
Exodus *does* face some hard business decisions. Unfortunately, blaming BBN isn't going to do much to help Exodus. Capitalists trashing capitalism? Please.
It is my understanding that BBN is even hesitant to peer with Exodus PUBLICLY. Exodus does not buy transit from anyone, so that would result in total inaccessability, no? How would that be in anyone's best interest? If anyone knows otherwise, please do speak up. If this is, indeed, the case, then it really sucks for Exodus, given their transit-free nature.
Uh-cough.
From nitrous, just one network block:
*>i199.245.183.0 209.185.9.157 2000000000 100 0 3967 i * 192.41.177.240 7 90 0 1800 1239 3967 i * i 209.185.9.157 2000000000 100 0 3967 i * 192.41.177.241 69 100 0 1239 3967 i It looks like Exodus buys transit from Sprint to me. -Deepak. On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Adam Rothschild wrote:
Exodus *does* face some hard business decisions. Unfortunately, blaming BBN isn't going to do much to help Exodus. Capitalists trashing capitalism? Please.
It is my understanding that BBN is even hesitant to peer with Exodus PUBLICLY. Exodus does not buy transit from anyone, so that would result in total inaccessability, no? How would that be in anyone's best interest? If anyone knows otherwise, please do speak up.
If this is, indeed, the case, then it really sucks for Exodus, given their transit-free nature.
On Thu, Aug 13, 1998 at 02:18:31PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
Uh-cough.
From nitrous, just one network block:
*>i199.245.183.0 209.185.9.157 2000000000 100 0 3967 i * 192.41.177.240 7 90 0 1800 1239 3967 i * i 209.185.9.157 2000000000 100 0 3967 i * 192.41.177.241 69 100 0 1239 3967 i
It looks like Exodus buys transit from Sprint to me.
-Deepak.
Hello, Actually just a case of bad filters. I was able to contact sprint just a few minutes ago and get them to fix this problem with their filters. No one should be annoucing transit routes for us so feel free to let me know know if you see some so I can happily smack the provider with a clue bat. *>i199.245.183.0 209.185.9.157 2000000000 100 0 3967 i h 192.41.177.240 7 90 0 1800 1239 3967 i * i 209.185.9.157 2000000000 100 0 3967 i h 192.41.177.241 69 100 0 1239 3967 i Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention :) -Steve -- Steven O. Noble -- Sr. Backbone Engineer, Exodus Communications (EXDS) -- Land:408.346.2333 Beep:408.925.8141 Wire:408.221.6417 -- All my love to the Canadian Mooing Frog.
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, John Butler wrote:
This statement is deluded to say the least. BBN peers with most other major backbone providers, and they have one of the fastest, most reliable networks in the world. Say Ms. Hancock ends up buying transit from Digex or UUnet. Under most current hot-potato routing schemes, that carrier will drop the packet at the closest BBN peering point, and the
But...do Above.net and Exodus.net actually buy transit from anyone, or are they each large enough that they just connect to the various NAPs and have free peering with all the other major networks? If they don't buy transit from any other backbone, and lose peering with BBN, what path will packets between BBN and either of the two above take? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or Network Administrator | drawn and quartered...whichever Florida Digital Turnpike | is more convenient. ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
We do not have transit. Whomever showed the traceroute via Sprint must be using a Sprint connected host, so they need to check their facts. It's real easy, if BBN takes the PXs down, there will be disconnectivity. To the best of my knowledge, CRL also has a similar condition. Rob Exodus
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, John Butler wrote:
This statement is deluded to say the least. BBN peers with most other major backbone providers, and they have one of the fastest, most reliable networks in the world. Say Ms. Hancock ends up buying transit from Digex or UUnet. Under most current hot-potato routing schemes, that carrier will drop the packet at the closest BBN peering point, and the
But...do Above.net and Exodus.net actually buy transit from anyone, or are they each large enough that they just connect to the various NAPs and have free peering with all the other major networks? If they don't buy transit from any other backbone, and lose peering with BBN, what path will packets between BBN and either of the two above take?
------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or Network Administrator | drawn and quartered...whichever Florida Digital Turnpike | is more convenient. ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Robert Bowman wrote:
We do not have transit. Whomever showed the traceroute via Sprint must be using a Sprint connected host, so they need to check their facts. It's real easy, if BBN takes the PXs down, there will be disconnectivity. To the best of my knowledge, CRL also has a similar condition.
Sounds like a high stakes game of Internet Peering Chicken. Who gets damaged the most when BBN customers complain they cannot access Exodus and Abovenet customers, and Exodus and Abovenet customers complain they cannot be accessed by BBN customers? If I were a BBN customer, I'd be pissed. If I were hosted by Abovenet, I wouldn't be too happy either. Perhaps BBN management just passed a course in Tearing up the Internet for fun and profit. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or Network Administrator | drawn and quartered...whichever Florida Digital Turnpike | is more convenient. ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Robert Bowman wrote:
We do not have transit. Whomever showed the traceroute via Sprint must be using a Sprint connected host, so they need to check their facts. It's real easy, if BBN takes the PXs down, there will be disconnectivity. To the best of my knowledge, CRL also has a similar condition.
Sounds like a high stakes game of Internet Peering Chicken. Who gets damaged the most when BBN customers complain they cannot access Exodus and Abovenet customers, and Exodus and Abovenet customers complain they cannot be accessed by BBN customers? If I were a BBN customer, I'd be pissed. If I were hosted by Abovenet, I wouldn't be too happy either.
That is one thing I don't understand about the aversion to peering. We peer with anyone who will either pay the line costs or connect to us over Bell FR, where the costs are negligible. Granted, we are small potatoes in the ISP field, but to my way of thinking both parties benefit. There is a customer here communicating with a customer there. Both ISPs are getting money from their customer to get connectivity to the other ISP's customer. Dropping the peering connection degrades connectivity for both ISPs' customers. I understand that there is a an issue about a smaller player using the larger player's long-haul links for transport, but in this case it seems that Exodus is neither a significantly smaller player nor are they using BBN's links for long-haul. In fact, it seems that if Exodus were to purchase transit, all that traffic would be moved to a single peering point between BBN and whoever they purchased traffic from, which *would* be using BBN's long-haul network. Not to mention that the asymmetry of that link would become the same level of a "problem" as the current links to Exodus. I don't expect that a small ISP like ourselves could go to any of the major ISPs and expect to peer for free, but in this case it looks like BBN gets at least as much benefit as Exodus of the current arrangement.
Perhaps BBN management just passed a course in Tearing up the Internet for fun and profit.
More likely they think they have Exodus/etc backed into a corner with no option but to pay BBN for transit. John Tamplin Traveller Information Services jat@Traveller.COM 2104 West Ferry Way 256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 Huntsville, AL 35801
On Thu, Aug 13, 1998 at 02:20:44PM -0500, John A. Tamplin wrote:
Perhaps BBN management just passed a course in Tearing up the Internet for fun and profit.
Right in one, Jon.
More likely they think they have Exodus/etc backed into a corner with no option but to pay BBN for transit.
In which case, "deluded" is a good choice of adjectives. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
On Thu, Aug 13, 1998 at 11:18:14AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, John Butler wrote:
This statement is deluded to say the least. BBN peers with most other major backbone providers, and they have one of the fastest, most reliable networks in the world. Say Ms. Hancock ends up buying transit from Digex or UUnet. Under most current hot-potato routing schemes, that carrier will drop the packet at the closest BBN peering point, and the
But...do Above.net and Exodus.net actually buy transit from anyone, or are they each large enough that they just connect to the various NAPs and have free peering with all the other major networks? If they don't buy transit from any other backbone, and lose peering with BBN, what path will packets between BBN and either of the two above take?
None. And when BBN customers call Exodus customers to ask why they can't get through, I hope Exodus has informed them (before that happens) why and what they should do with their BBN contracts. (hint: paper shredders make wonderful confetti). -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 06:26:51PM -0400, John Butler wrote:
From the article: "It appears that the result of this action will harm BBN and its customers substantially more than it will harm our customers," said Exodus President Ellen Hancock in an Aug. 5 letter to customers.
This statement is deluded to say the least. BBN peers with most other major backbone providers, and they have one of the fastest, most reliable networks in the world.
And that's why as a BBN customer in Florida, the only rout I have to most of the rest of the world is through MAE-East? I don't think so. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
I've heard the two line explanation of what BBN is doing. Will anyone indulge my curiosity and give me the low down on what the issue is? We're lighting fiber into their new Beaverton POP, and I'd like to ask our wholesale rep/engineer about this. Michael On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Adam Rothschild wrote:
If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues, please drop me an email, or call.
I would like to communicate openly and publicly about this.
What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what their rationale is behind it.
That is, a public explanation other than the all-too-obvious "We're greedy. Welcome to the business world. We're not going to change our minds, so shut the fuck up and buy some transit, you dumb suckers."
Though I must admit that what I've heard may be biased, as I've heard from the opressees moreso than the opressors, this sounds like an issue driven by sheer stupidity and capitalism on BBN's behalf. Certainly does not ^^^^^^^^^^^^ As an aside, would you prefer a socialist approach towards networking?
seem to be in their best interest, or the best interest of the Internet as a whole. Of course, I could be mistaken, which is why I'd like some word from BBN.
Rather than limit this issue to within the confines of private communication, I would like to see it carried out as a very vocal and lively public one. That way, the general public will be able to make an educated decision regarding whether or not to purchase transit from BBN/GTE, in light of this.
Regards, Adam
I've heard the two line explanation of what BBN is doing. Will anyone indulge my curiosity and give me the low down on what the issue is? We're lighting fiber into their new Beaverton POP, and I'd like to ask our wholesale rep/engineer about this.
As Matt Dillion pointed out a few messages back, there is an article at: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980810h.html CRL has been notified as well, and this means that ftp.cdrom.com (which I'm responsible for) is at risk of becoming unaccessible to GTEI/BBN customers in the near future. I just wrote some text regarding this at: ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/bbn-notice.txt -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
John Curran says: "The central problem is asymmetry of traffic between GTEI and the hosting companies, Curran said. Exodus pumps many times more bits to GTEI than are sent the other way." My rebut (which, may be totally uncalled for): "The central problem is asymmetry of traffic between GTEI and the hosting companies, Curran said. BBN/GTEI customers generally request webpages from Exodus more than from other places." -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Now's your chance, the FCC just released a Notice of Inquiry, FCC 98-187, "Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capabilities..." available in a variety of formats via http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/706/ Take a look at paragraph 79: What can and should the Commission do to preserve efficient peering arrangements among Internet companies, especially in the face of consolidations of large proprietary gateways? We ask for comment whether the Commission should monitor or have authority over peering arrangements to assure that the public interest is served. But be careful, commenting could be akin to opening "Pandora's Box" ;-) Nick
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Nick Lordi wrote:
What can and should the Commission do to preserve efficient peering arrangements among Internet companies, especially in the face of consolidations of large proprietary gateways? We ask for comment whether the Commission should monitor or have authority over peering arrangements to assure that the public interest is served.
But be careful, commenting could be akin to opening "Pandora's Box" ;-)
In the past, comments needed to be written and snail-mailed in order to really be effective. Include a URL in the letter for the HTML version of your comments so they can post them on their website. Email comments are not taken seriously. However they do have a new electronic comment filing system at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html and if you file a comment, not just an email, it will probably be considered as seriously as snail-mail. Note that you do *NOT* need a lawyer to file formal comments, just fill out the form carefully at http://dettifoss.fcc.gov:8080/cgi-bin/ws.exe/beta/ecfs/upload.hts and please send the comments in ASCII text form. Either browse an HTML page with Lynx and use P to generate plain ASCII or in Word Save File as Type (MS-DOS Text with Layout). It is *NOT* necessary to use a lawyer to file a formal comment. Also note that the FCC staffers are still heard to remark that they get very little input from the ISP industry and don't really know much about it or how ISPs view the situation. This means that ISPs have a chance to be heard without spending the big bucks that US Telephone Association members are spending. Go for it!!! -- 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
I've tried to stay away from posting here, but a small clarification... Exodus is currently dealing with the asymmetry of traffic by assuming a large chunk of the burden by doing best-exit, at BBN's request, based upon BBN's MEDs. So let's not make it into the argument that the "evil" web hosters are just dumping recklessly via shortest-path out. Exodus has assumed the cost of all long haul delivery coast-to-coast of the data that BBN's users are requesting. **The above opinion is that of mine & Exodus Communications Inc. It is not intended to reflect the opinions of John Curran, CTO of BBN/GTE/GTEI Robert Bowman Director Backbone Engineering Exodus Communications Inc. rob@exodus.net
John Curran says:
"The central problem is asymmetry of traffic between GTEI and the hosting companies, Curran said. Exodus pumps many times more bits to GTEI than are sent the other way."
My rebut (which, may be totally uncalled for):
"The central problem is asymmetry of traffic between GTEI and the hosting companies, Curran said. BBN/GTEI customers generally request webpages from Exodus more than from other places."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Robert Bowman wrote:
I've tried to stay away from posting here, but a small clarification...
Exodus is currently dealing with the asymmetry of traffic by assuming a large chunk of the burden by doing best-exit, at BBN's request, based upon BBN's MEDs. So let's not make it into the argument that the "evil" web hosters are just dumping recklessly via shortest-path out. Exodus has assumed the cost of all long haul delivery coast-to-coast of the data that BBN's users are requesting.
Heh, that makes it look even worse for BBN now and potentially in the future, depending on what Exodus chooses to do. It's amazing that they shot thierselves in the foot like this.
From http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980810h.html The central problem is asymmetry of traffic between GTEI and the hosting companies, Curran said. Exodus pumps many times more bits to GTEI than are sent the other way.
This "problem" is easily solved. Compare the list of smurf amp nets to a bgp dump and determine which nets are behind AS 1. Send ICMP echo packets to those nets. There are of course many other relatively trivial ways to lessen the differential between ingress and egress. Thus the "central problem" is really something different, but who didn't already know that? Bradley
Also, let's not forget: Essentially, the pain that will be felt by GTE/BBN is disconnecting themselves from many popular and high-volume web sites, including geocities, hotmail, sony, tripod/lycos, cbs sportsline, etc. As for any comments made by GTE/BBN regarding uneven traffic flow, I would sure as hell hope that is the case. Surely an HTTP 'GET' request consumes less bandwidth than the content spewed back. Then again, GTE/BBN may be too caught up to realize this, as they could very well be laughing their asses off all the way to the bank.
Err, you are missing something. Obviously GTE knows this, that is the point of killing the peering. The question is, is the method the GTE is using to determine who should pay for transit accurate? Turn it around; why shouldn't BBN pay Exodus to terminate the traffic for them? It just strikes me as odd that BBN is trying to [essentially] apply a telecom-accepted/FCC-tarrifed method of termination payments to IP packets. In effect, what BBN is doing is revolutionary. However, in my opinion, it is sad to see essentially one of the founders of the Internet to bend the Internet over and break out the Vaseline. However, that is just my opinion. I wonder what Sprint and MCI's position is on this... Will we see them doing that same?
As for any comments made by GTE/BBN regarding uneven traffic flow, I would sure as hell hope that is the case. Surely an HTTP 'GET' request consumes less bandwidth than the content spewed back. Then again, GTE/BBN may be too caught up to realize this, as they could very well be laughing their asses off all the way to the bank.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
On Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 09:39:46AM -0400, Adam Rothschild wrote:
If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues, please drop me an email, or call.
I would like to communicate openly and publicly about this.
What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what their rationale is behind it.
That is, a public explanation other than the all-too-obvious "We're greedy. Welcome to the business world. We're not going to change our minds, so shut the fuck up and buy some transit, you dumb suckers."
Based on just that little slice of the conversation, is BBN doing what UUnet apparently failed in _it's_ attempt to do last fall, to Jack Rickard's (and my) vast amusement? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
participants (24)
-
Adam Rothschild -
alex＠nac.net -
Bradley Dunn -
Dan Ritter -
David Greenman -
Deepak Jain -
dlr＠bungi.com -
Forrest W. Christian -
Gary E. Miller -
Henry Linneweh -
Jared Mauch -
Jay R. Ashworth -
John A. Tamplin -
John Butler -
Jon Lewis -
jzeeff＠verio.net -
Karl Denninger -
Michael Dillon -
Mike Schrimshaw -
Nathan Stratton -
Nick Lordi -
Robert Bowman -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
steve＠altrina.exodus.net