Re: Sprint peering policy
: when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention : has always resulted. even when the scope is international. i've not : been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not : stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers.
Let's hope they don't decide to do that.
i won't take a position on this, other than that "dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability". wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer ("citizen"). if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted: 1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life (& economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here. none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of "self regulation" currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.
Regarding Pauls' excellent comment. During the buildout phase 1995 - 1999 I understand very well the reasons for no regulation of interconnection. Successful growth was happening too fast for the Fed's to second guess by regulating interconnect the process of which would slow the build out down and do economic harm. We are now halfway through 2002. the build out is complete and most of the builders are either in chapter 11 or in danger of going there. Does anyone believe that the non regulation arguments of the build out phase still hold? If so other than for reasons of blind ideology (all regulation by definition is bad), why? All the TIER 1s (6 were mentioned in an earlier comment) are in SERIOUS economic trouble. Their IP networks certainly qualify as CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. EBONE in a matter of days went from 'viable" to life support. After WorldCom's scandal this week does anyone REALLY think a similar UGLY surprise cannot happen here? As PAUL points out, this is now an industry that is critical to keeping economic activity flowing smoothly, yet Washington is taking more and more of a hands off course. Where is it possible to gain any reliable data on which networks are lit with what equipment and offering how many actual lambdas? Or even how many fibers in a given back bone are actually lit? We know there is huge unused capacity, yet because there are no reporting requirements as to what networks are lit to what capacity, we very likely don't know whether the fiber in the ground is being used to one per cent of its potential or 10% or even 20%. Moreover we do not know the extent to which optical bandwidth is growing? Not knowing this, how can anyone make any intelligent economic or policy or investment decisions? The LECs must tell the FCC numbers of lines in use and numbers of access minutes. The IP industry must tell the FCC essentially nothing. Why shoud such policy continue? Does the borg still exist? do big players at least still share this data with each other? Will Congress have to pass a law before the FCC can demand data? as Vixie said: "we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind." Paul Vixie said something important when he commented that
i won't take a position on this, other than that "dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability".
wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer ("citizen"). if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted:
1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life (& economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect
so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here.
none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of "self regulation" currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.
-- ======================================================== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook@cookreport.com Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Here Comes Asset Based Telecom A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml ========================================================
While I do assert the validity of concerns for the economic repercussions as a result of laissez-fair 'Internet' practices, I don't believe the sky is falling. There is enough economic strength to maintain the use we actually get out of necessary pipes, and continued growth will, in do time, support the expansion predicted in the mid to late '90s. Will the shortfall take with it some undeserving companies, peoples, and ideas, yes, but that has been the nature of every economic boom. Legitimate claims can be made that abusive peering policies can be detrimental to the free trade of ideas and commerce, and may lead to monopolies that dwarf the infamy of Standard Oil, AT&T, Debeers... but what is the cost? A government mandated (censorship and exclusion of anti-American 3rd world countries aside) policy at this point will more quickly downward spiral the rapid growth all us geeks have embraced. The only thing that will cushion the blow at this point is continued, if not growing, consumer use; and, the US government--if no private company steps up--may have to buy out some pipes to protect the DOD and primary Intercontinental connections. Any intervention, or escalation of involvement, by the FCC, for accountability and peering regulation, will have to come after the dust settles, in the form of a free trade act aimed at equal pricing for competitors. Have faith in the individual.. I realize this is off the page, so let me leave you with /rant. --jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Cook" <cook@cookreport.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu>; "Paul Vixie" <paul@vix.com> Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:14 PM Subject: Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint peering policy
Regarding Pauls' excellent comment.
During the buildout phase 1995 - 1999 I understand very well the reasons for no regulation of interconnection.
Successful growth was happening too fast for the Fed's to second guess by regulating interconnect the process of which would slow the build out down and do economic harm.
We are now halfway through 2002. the build out is complete and most of the builders are either in chapter 11 or in danger of going there. Does anyone believe that the non regulation arguments of the build out phase still hold? If so other than for reasons of blind ideology (all regulation by definition is bad), why?
All the TIER 1s (6 were mentioned in an earlier comment) are in SERIOUS economic trouble. Their IP networks certainly qualify as CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. EBONE in a matter of days went from 'viable" to life support. After WorldCom's scandal this week does anyone REALLY think a similar UGLY surprise cannot happen here?
As PAUL points out, this is now an industry that is critical to keeping economic activity flowing smoothly, yet Washington is taking more and more of a hands off course.
Where is it possible to gain any reliable data on which networks are lit with what equipment and offering how many actual lambdas? Or even how many fibers in a given back bone are actually lit? We know there is huge unused capacity, yet because there are no reporting requirements as to what networks are lit to what capacity, we very likely don't know whether the fiber in the ground is being used to one per cent of its potential or 10% or even 20%. Moreover we do not know the extent to which optical bandwidth is growing? Not knowing this, how can anyone make any intelligent economic or policy or investment decisions? The LECs must tell the FCC numbers of lines in use and numbers of access minutes. The IP industry must tell the FCC essentially nothing. Why shoud such policy continue?
Does the borg still exist? do big players at least still share this data with each other?
Will Congress have to pass a law before the FCC can demand data?
as Vixie said: "we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind."
Paul Vixie said something important when he commented that
i won't take a position on this, other than that "dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability".
wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer
("citizen").
if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted:
1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life (& economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect
so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here.
none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of "self regulation" currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.
-- ======================================================== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook@cookreport.com Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Here Comes Asset Based Telecom A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml ========================================================
Oh, no. If anyone has illusions that politicos can somehow fix the situation, he ought to do serious reality check. If anything, they made that mess in the first place by creating ILEC monopolies and allowing those supposedly regulated monopilists to strange the emerging last mile broadband providers. With the obvious result of getting backbones to lose the projected traffic and revenue streams. (Of course, they were also very lax in policing conflicts of interest and accounting practices). The "serious economic trouble" means that some of those tier-1 providers will go to chapter 11, and emerge with paid-for capacity and no crippling debts (and with sane executives, too). At least 4 will survive; the potential value of the remaining ones to their creditors will grow as competitors die off. --vadim On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Gordon Cook wrote:
We are now halfway through 2002. the build out is complete and most of the builders are either in chapter 11 or in danger of going there. Does anyone believe that the non regulation arguments of the build out phase still hold? If so other than for reasons of blind ideology (all regulation by definition is bad), why?
I'm certainly no expert on US telecom politics but, on a global scale Telecoms companies always seems to be monopolies and ISPs arent.. and its not to do with political policies Most (all?) countries historically had an incumbent operator which at some time in the last 20 years was deregulated .. the trouble is whichever entity gets to own the wires in a region has a total advantage over the competitors and always comes out on top. By contrast ISPs started in pockets and grew out, eventually overlapping and setting up good levels of competition. The traffic profiles are very different too, most phone calls stay inside the region whereas most IP traffic goes outside the region, (country, continent..) which changes the dynamics of the business and makes for an equal field of play. The two worlds obviously meet where the ISP wants to use last mile infrastructure and then you're back to the telecoms monopoly to provide that. Regulation doesnt have to be like it is for telecoms, it would need to suit the specific problems of the ISP industry and shouldnt need to be over imposing, it wouldnt be a bad idea at all.... but it worries me that a handful of "tier 1" companies seem to dominate and they all share similar anti-smaller-isp policies and any regulation would need to make sure it benefited all the providers and not just the big ones. Steve On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Oh, no. If anyone has illusions that politicos can somehow fix the situation, he ought to do serious reality check. If anything, they made that mess in the first place by creating ILEC monopolies and allowing those supposedly regulated monopilists to strange the emerging last mile broadband providers. With the obvious result of getting backbones to lose the projected traffic and revenue streams.
(Of course, they were also very lax in policing conflicts of interest and accounting practices).
The "serious economic trouble" means that some of those tier-1 providers will go to chapter 11, and emerge with paid-for capacity and no crippling debts (and with sane executives, too). At least 4 will survive; the potential value of the remaining ones to their creditors will grow as competitors die off.
--vadim
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Gordon Cook wrote:
We are now halfway through 2002. the build out is complete and most of the builders are either in chapter 11 or in danger of going there. Does anyone believe that the non regulation arguments of the build out phase still hold? If so other than for reasons of blind ideology (all regulation by definition is bad), why?
SJW> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 11:09:53 +0100 (BST) SJW> From: Stephen J. Wilcox SJW> Most (all?) countries historically had an incumbent operator SJW> which at some time in the last 20 years was deregulated.. SJW> the trouble is whichever entity gets to own the wires in a SJW> region has a total advantage over the competitors and always SJW> comes out on top. IMHO, municipal fiber is an interesting approach. "municipal fiber" site:.canarie.ca on Google is a good start... Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0 or 255? For e.g.: Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 07:53:32AM -0700, JothirLatha Jaganathan wrote:
Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0 or 255?
For e.g.:
Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address?
% host core3.sfrn.ca core3.sfrn.ca.rcn.net has address 208.59.222.0 Been up and running fine for the past 11 months, happy loopback in ISIS/iBGP/EBGP converstions. The largest hurdle was getting the knuckle-draggers to not be confused or believe it an error. I would have to ask why you would think it would NOT be valid? If there is a vendor implementation that has probelems with it, that would be a bug, and I would consider it one for anyhting past 1994 vintage code. Cheers, Joe -- Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375 Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo@rcn.com>
JJ> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 07:53:32 -0700 (PDT) JJ> From: JothirLatha Jaganathan JJ> Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to JJ> point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0 JJ> or 255? JJ> JJ> For e.g.: JJ> JJ> Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address? You sort of answered your own question. If the subnet length is 32, everything is network address. What makes a network ending in several 0 bits special? Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
In the referenced message, JothirLatha Jaganathan said:
Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0 or 255?
For e.g.:
Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address?
Yes, it is valid, as is 10.1.1.0/31, for ptp links.
Thanks to all of you for your kind reply. --- JothirLatha Jaganathan <jyothi_j@yahoo.com> wrote:
Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0 or 255?
For e.g.:
Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
i just want to clarify that...
Oh, no. If anyone has illusions that politicos can somehow fix the situation, he ought to do serious reality check. ...
...while my name does appear in the Subject: header, i have no illusions that the world's gov'ts can do a better job on peering architecture than is being done now. when i added my comments to the parent thread, i only meant to indicate my surprise that such isn't being tried -- NOT any disappointment. -- Paul Vixie
Air Travel: Limited resources (gates), public safety issues, public infrastructure used (ATC system). Commercial Fishing: Limited resources, environmental issues Conventional Telco: Pre-existing monopoly using what was essentially public ifrastructure. Same goes for Cable TV. How do IP networks fall into any of these categories? It's not like we are going to overfish our BGP sessions or crash routers into things. - Daniel Golding
Paul Vixie Said... so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here.
none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of "self regulation" currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.
participants (11)
-
Daniel Golding -
E.B. Dreger -
Gordon Cook -
jnelson -
Joe Provo -
JothirLatha Jaganathan -
Paul Vixie -
Paul Vixie -
Stephen Griffin -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Vadim Antonov