Nanog mentioned on BBC news website
Big up the Nanog community, you do the net proud... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8163190.stm
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:27:39 +0100 From: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com>
Big up the Nanog community, you do the net proud...
First showed up on NANOG 7 hours ago, but it was a fun read. Clearly the article has little connection with reality. I am not an unpaid volunteer and neither were most or all of those involved. The idea that just because the traffic does not originate or terminate on my net means that working on solving a problem is altruism is pretty silly. And NANOG was not really involved though several of those that were are active in NANOG. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:27:39 +0100 From: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com>
Big up the Nanog community, you do the net proud...
First showed up on NANOG 7 hours ago, but it was a fun read.
Clearly the article has little connection with reality. I am not an unpaid volunteer and neither were most or all of those involved. The idea that just because the traffic does not originate or terminate on my net means that working on solving a problem is altruism is pretty silly.
My fav part: <quote> "That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a many as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data around having no contractual or legal obligation to the original sender or to the receiver." </quote> How many of you pass packets without getting paid? Kinda makes you wonder about all those other TED talks, huh?
And NANOG was not really involved though several of those that were are active in NANOG.
Well, one could argue that NANOG _is_ its members. Yeah, a stretch, but I'm trying. :-) -- TTFN, patrick
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
My fav part: <quote> "That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a many as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data around having no contractual or legal obligation to the original sender or to the receiver." </quote>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3 or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company. they likely have contracts or obligations with their immediate neighbours, which is basically why the system continues to work. -- Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +971 55 410-5633 "I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I live here and I'm going to take a leak." - Lester Pearson in 1967, during a meeting between himself and President Lyndon Johnson, whose Secret Service detail had taken over Pearson's cottage retreat. At one point, a Johnson guard asked Pearson, "Who are you and where are you going?"
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3 or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
they likely have contracts or obligations with their immediate neighbours, which is basically why the system continues to work.
I'm not sure if this is the benefit for the lurkers or the old guys, or will eventually get recycled in the press and give me a headache, but here goes. I think what people seem to keep skipping over is the concept that packets generated from "A" go to ISP "B" who has relationship with C... to pass packets to "Z". From the point of view of "C" all packets from "B" (including "A") are just "B"'s traffic. It's not as simple as I have an agreement with my neighbor and we pass slop around. If I am "C", whatever my neighbor is moving is essentially of equal value in my agreement with my neighbor (until one of us chooses to renegotiate it: i.e. peering dispute, whatever). No matter which "A" is sending it to "B". I don't *really* get the option to pick and choose on a per packet basis. In the case of three intervening networks, each is aggregating their customers' traffic and passing the relevant portions to the neighboring network (presumably for *their* aggregated customers' traffic). This is, in some ways, fundamentally different than the US highway system, where if I'm driving a truck between one state and another, the next state (even though they have interconnection agreements) can set different rules on me than the state I just left. I know this happens with (for example) Michigan and its neighbors. In the Internet context, my neighbor is responsible to abide by our agreement and prevent the traffic coming over to me from violating that agreement and I am allowed to police and enforce that border any way I want. What this means is that if "A" is affected by something, from my perspective as "C", "B" is absolutely authoritative for the discussion about "A"'s traffic and what to do with it. (No matter how many "B"'s A has contracted with, B and C do not have to ask A for permission for ways/means/methods to move packets). We can agree to drop it on the floor, give it priority or special treatment or generally just ignore it and let the packets pass the way they will. This how the so-called community "volunteers" have so much ability to affect and improve the system. Everyone operates in their own fiefdom owing little allegiance (other than those of commerce and equity) to its neighbors. I may charge a tariff to enter my fiefdom, but once packets enter my fiefdom, they are my packets. I protect them, and try to speed them on their way without impediment and I negotiate with others on their behalf to improve their happiness. And continuing the micro-economics analogy... this is why periodic wars break out between larger fiefdoms and there is little way to influence them to play for the "good" of the system. The only way to influence them is for their own good. DJ P.S. I've been scratching my head and wondering what this TED thing is all about, it seems like a big cheerleading thing..
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Jim Mercer<jim@reptiles.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
My fav part: <quote> "That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a many as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data around having no contractual or legal obligation to the original sender or to the receiver." </quote>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3 or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
If I pay you to send my packets and you pay bob to send my packets then I have paid bob to send my packets. Transitive property of payment. ;-) 'Couse bob doesn't pay claire anything but denise pays claire to receive packets for denise, my packets are intended for denise and bob and claire have a peering agreement in which they agree to swap already-paid traffic directly rather than both paying ed to do it for them. So it ain't free and at each step there is a contractual obligation to at least one of the sender or receiver. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Very well put Bill :) Winn Johnston Linux Systems Administrator ________________________________________ From: William Herrin [herrin-nanog@dirtside.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:38 PM To: Jim Mercer Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Jim Mercer<jim@reptiles.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
My fav part: <quote> "That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a many as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data around having no contractual or legal obligation to the original sender or to the receiver." </quote>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3 or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
If I pay you to send my packets and you pay bob to send my packets then I have paid bob to send my packets. Transitive property of payment. ;-) 'Couse bob doesn't pay claire anything but denise pays claire to receive packets for denise, my packets are intended for denise and bob and claire have a peering agreement in which they agree to swap already-paid traffic directly rather than both paying ed to do it for them. So it ain't free and at each step there is a contractual obligation to at least one of the sender or receiver. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 ______________________________________________________________________ This inbound email was scanned by MessageLabs _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email was scanned by MessageLabs _____________________________________________________________________
<snipped>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3 or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
If I pay you to send my packets and you pay bob to send my packets then I have paid bob to send my packets. Transitive property of payment. ;-)
Yes, the transitive property prevails but there are constraints: imagine if Bob were not there to take this "relatively small" payment! Thus if I pay you to send my packets and you pay Bob to send those packets -- then indirectly I have paid Bob an amount which is much less compared to what you would charge me if you had to "build the Bob" yourself -- I am sure you would pass on the costs to me, the end user, especially if there is no such thing as unpaid volunteerism :) The paradox is that the existence of Bob lowers the cost to an end user -- there is some such thing that can be classified as unpaid volunteerism... and yes, being the Bobs, the NANOGers are exhibiting this unpaid volunteerism!
'Couse bob doesn't pay claire anything but denise pays claire to receive packets for denise, my packets are intended for denise and bob and claire have a peering agreement in which they agree to swap already-paid traffic directly rather than both paying ed to do it for them.
So it ain't free and at each step there is a contractual obligation to at least one of the sender or receiver.
Regards, Bill
-- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors. On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:27, Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
My fav part: <quote> "That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a many as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data around having no contractual or legal obligation to the original sender or to the receiver." </quote>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3 or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
they likely have contracts or obligations with their immediate neighbours, which is basically why the system continues to work.
I honestly expected someone to mention this when I wrote the original post, but I had hopes no one would. :-) It is clear the intent of the TED speaker was the intermediaries were transiting packets out of the good of their hearts. Allow me to illustrate: The postal system is amazing! You can mail a letter from the US to England and the "intermediate" carrier will deliver the mail even though they have NO contract with you or the recipient! How awesome is that? This is not fantasy. You give it to the USPS, who will hand it to DHL, who will hand it to Royal Mail, who will hand it to the recipient. Does _anyone_ comment on the lack of your contract with DHL? Is anyone surprised it still works? Is it worthy of a TED talk? -- TTFN, patrick
On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:27, Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
My fav part: <quote> "That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a many as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data around having no contractual or legal obligation to the original sender or to the receiver." </quote>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3 or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
they likely have contracts or obligations with their immediate neighbours, which is basically why the system continues to work.
I honestly expected someone to mention this when I wrote the original post, but I had hopes no one would. :-)
It is clear the intent of the TED speaker was the intermediaries were transiting packets out of the good of their hearts.
Allow me to illustrate:
The postal system is amazing! You can mail a letter from the US to England and the "intermediate" carrier will deliver the mail even though they have NO contract with you or the recipient! How awesome is that?
This is not fantasy. You give it to the USPS, who will hand it to DHL, who will hand it to Royal Mail, who will hand it to the recipient. Does _anyone_ comment on the lack of your contract with DHL? Is anyone surprised it still works? Is it worthy of a TED talk?
You obviously don't understand the executive briefings industry ! Regards Marshall
-- TTFN, patrick
Hi To summarize the article "Nanogers you do a great job" On the rest we can safely say we are probably more clueful as to what goes on and we can try as much to correct but I doubt anyone will want to put all the gory details in any form of press Raymond On 7/22/09, andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Big up the Nanog community, you do the net proud...
-- Sent from my mobile device Raymond Macharia
participants (10)
-
andrew.wallace -
Deepak Jain -
Jim Mercer -
Kevin Oberman -
Marshall Eubanks -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Raymond Macharia -
William Herrin -
Winn Johnston -
Zartash Uzmi