Mailing List Archive

> > I believe that a middle-tier between the ISP and the NSP is the best way
> > to achieve this and could very well decrease global routing table size.
> >
> These are often called Metropolitan Exchanges. They have been proposed
> repeatedly in the IETF context. Several of them are operational around
> the US, but there need to be hundreds of them.
>
> How about you? Have you created one in _your_ metro?

Yes, actually, but they solve a different problem ... bandwidth.
It doesn't provide Internet connectivity, it doesn't assign IP addresses...
though it could provide backup connectivity with the appropriate transit
agreements in place between participating ISP's.

This is the model that most of these exchanges are being built around.
Anything else is "just a really big local ISP" and is imposing a business
model upon a region worse than any FCC tarriff has done.

Dave

--
Dave Siegel Sr. Network Engineer, RTD Systems & Networking
(520)623-9663 Network Consultant -- Regional/National NSPs
dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP,
http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."

bsimpson@morningstar.com (William Allen Simpson) wrote:

> I certainly wouldn't want to add yet another peering arrangement
> with every Tom, Dick and Harry that showed up at any regional
> interconnect. One interconnect, one peering arrangement.

Oh, come on, Bill... don't pretend to be be clueless just for the
sake of antagonizing folks. The MIXes have route servers just like
any other peering points. Or am I missing the point of your
objection?

-Bill

________________________________________________________________________________
bill woodcock woody@zocalo.net woody@applelink.apple.com user@host.domain.com

bill> How about you? Have you created one in _your_ metro?
[clip]
bill>A business model that shafts everyone else on the net so that you can
bill>make more money?

How do the extant MIXes fare, economically? No, not post-NSF subsidized
NAPs, but the 'purely' independant ventures. I can grok most of the numbers
involved in these but the ones beginning with $'s.

Cheers,

Joe Provo
Network Operations Center
UltraNet Communications, Inc.

> From: Dave Siegel <dsiegel@rtd.com>
> > How about you? Have you created one in _your_ metro?
>
> Yes, actually, but they solve a different problem ... bandwidth.
> It doesn't provide Internet connectivity, it doesn't assign IP addresses...

What's the point if it doesn't provide connectivity? Anything that is
topological in nature, and yet is not reflected in the routing and
address assignment, is detrimental to the Internet as a whole.


> though it could provide backup connectivity with the appropriate transit
> agreements in place between participating ISP's.
>
How? I certainly wouldn't want to add yet another peering arrangement
with every Tom, Dick and Harry that showed up at any regional
interconnect. One interconnect, one peering arrangement.


> This is the model that most of these exchanges are being built around.
> Anything else is "just a really big local ISP" and is imposing a business
> model upon a region worse than any FCC tarriff has done.
>
A business model that shafts everyone else on the net so that you can
make more money?

Better that everyone else refuse to accept routes through your AS, and
improve their routing table size thereby.

WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson@MorningStar.com
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

> > From: Dave Siegel <dsiegel@rtd.com>
> > > How about you? Have you created one in _your_ metro?
> >
> > Yes, actually, but they solve a different problem ... bandwidth.
> > It doesn't provide Internet connectivity, it doesn't assign IP addresses...
>
> What's the point if it doesn't provide connectivity? Anything that is
> topological in nature, and yet is not reflected in the routing and
> address assignment, is detrimental to the Internet as a whole.

Who's Internet are you talking about? Are you talking about the one where
I can't get my packets across town without running packets all the way to
San Jose and back, and my reward for this is 10% packet loss? Oh, yeah,
I thought that was the one you were talking about.

There are several very large problems in the Internet, and the routing table
(and route flap) is *only* one of them.

> > though it could provide backup connectivity with the appropriate transit
> > agreements in place between participating ISP's.

> How? I certainly wouldn't want to add yet another peering arrangement
> with every Tom, Dick and Harry that showed up at any regional
> interconnect. One interconnect, one peering arrangement.

There is an MLPA available. None of the participants have shown much
interest in signing it...nor have they made any objections to it. Most
people just don't want paperwork.

Furthermore, an MLPA has nothing to do with address assignments, or providing
a large pipe to a larger entity to the participants.

Why not, you say? Because ISPs want to do it *their* way, not *your* way,
and that's why the business model doesn't work.

> > This is the model that most of these exchanges are being built around.
> > Anything else is "just a really big local ISP" and is imposing a business
> > model upon a region worse than any FCC tarriff has done.
> >
> A business model that shafts everyone else on the net so that you can
> make more money?

It's not MY business model that worries me. It's the guy at the computer
store down the road, or the one that came from 30 years of doing real estate
startup an ISP and pronounce that "unlike everyone else in town, he has a
connection to the 'Internet Backbone, MCI'."

You cannot expect to control how people buy, especially based on "good
intentions". The only way such a model would ever be adheared to is if the
Federal government suddenly started regulating the Internet, and they adopted
this model with similar effect of the IXC/LEC model.

> Better that everyone else refuse to accept routes through your AS, and
> improve their routing table size thereby.

What if I'm static routed? What's your point?

(I'm not, but that isn't)

Dave

--
Dave Siegel Sr. Network Engineer, RTD Systems & Networking
(520)623-9663 Network Consultant -- Regional/National NSPs
dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP,
http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."

Dave Siegel wrote:
>> How? I certainly wouldn't want to add yet another peering arrangement
>> with every Tom, Dick and Harry that showed up at any regional
>> interconnect. One interconnect, one peering arrangement.

>There is an MLPA available. None of the participants have shown much
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>interest in signing it...nor have they made any objections to it. Most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The PARTICIPANTS haven't objected. The non-participants have.

That's why _our_ [alternate] interconnect has NO blpas, NO
mlpas, NO lawyer-paperwork, etc. You show; you peer; you play.

Ehud

p.s. Our interconnect is The Tucson Interconnect, not to be confused
with Dave's RTD MIX/NAP.

> >> How? I certainly wouldn't want to add yet another peering arrangement
> >> with every Tom, Dick and Harry that showed up at any regional
> >> interconnect. One interconnect, one peering arrangement.
>
> >There is an MLPA available. None of the participants have shown much
> >interest in signing it...nor have they made any objections to it. Most
>
> The PARTICIPANTS haven't objected. The non-participants have.
> That's why _our_ [alternate] interconnect has NO blpas, NO
> mlpas, NO lawyer-paperwork, etc. You show; you peer; you play.

So, are you assigning address space, and aggregating all the participants
below you, and forcing folks to use you as their sole point of connectivity?

If you are, then the fact that you do not have all ISPs in Tucson under you
and advertising a single CIDR block on their behalf proves my point about
forcing a business model.

If you are not, then my comment about how we are trying to solve a different
problem than the routing table also proves my other point.

> Ehud
>
> p.s. Our interconnect is The Tucson Interconnect, not to be confused
> with [ The Tucson ] NAP.


Dave

--
Dave Siegel Sr. Network Engineer, RTD Systems & Networking
(520)623-9663 Network Consultant -- Regional/National NSPs
dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP,
http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."

Dave wrote:
...
>If you are not, then my comment about how we are trying to solve a different
>problem than the routing table also proves my other point.

We are trying to solve a different problem. However, you're
missing my point -- local interconnects shouldn't have the
legal hassles and paperwork of the national interconnects.

Ehud

Maybe I'm not getting the difference between yor two schemes... Ehud, you've
got an unwritten MLPA, while Dave has an optional MLPA? PCH has an unenforced
MLPA. I think I detect a pattern here. :-)

-Bill

>Maybe I'm not getting the difference between yor two schemes... Ehud, you've
>got an unwritten MLPA, while Dave has an optional MLPA? PCH has an unenforced
>MLPA. I think I detect a pattern here. :-)

> -Bill

If you had to force that corset on it, I'd call it a
"required unwritted settlement-free mlpa :)"

E