Mailing List Archive

I believe we do peer with ANS. However, I am not familiar with the
specifics of concurrent PSI/SURAnet T3 and the current state of the
ANS routing database.

I've forwarded your message on to ground troops in the vicinity to see
if they can give you a hand.

Thanks,

mf

P.S. I've edit'ed Cc: to cut down on multiple messages to individuals.
(they weren't swallowed by a mailer)

----------

> At 11:17 AM 4/8/96, Mark S. Fedor wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps you can tell me where PSI connects, good sir...
> >> By my count it's MAE-East and CIX and nowhere else.
> >> There are a few major backbones not at the Chicago NAP.
> >> And none of the majors are at MAE-Chicago or any of the MAEs other
> >> than East and West.
> >>
> >
> >PSINet connects to MAE-west, MAE-East, MAE-East+, CIX, and the
> >SWAB (little known SMDS Washington (DC) Area Bypass).
> >
> >mf
>
> But, d#*(^&-it, they don't peer with ANS, and therefore we at NSF cannot
> get to hosts like fnc.gov. We, denizens of the NSF who have the good
> fortune to have been caught in the institution's un-debated switchover to
> PSInet. Arghhh!
>
> This is the way some hosts that are not yet forced through PSI *can* get to
> fnc.gov:
>
> traceroute to web1.hpc.org (192.187.8.59), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 gw.cise.nsf.gov (128.150.55.1) 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms
> 2 wtn-6.bbnplanet.net (192.221.39.13) 6 ms 7 ms 6 ms
> 3 wtn-9.bbnplanet.net (128.167.26.9) 6 ms 9 ms 6 ms
> 4 wtn-8.bbnplanet.net (128.167.7.8) 22 ms 17 ms 30 ms
> 5 cpk-9.bbnplanet.net (128.167.212.1) 7 ms 37 ms 46 ms
> 6 cpk-5.bbnplanet.net (128.167.252.5) 9 ms 7 ms 9 ms
> 7 mae-east.bbnplanet.net (4.0.1.18) 22 ms 15 ms 14 ms
> 8 mae-east.ans.net (192.41.177.140) 9 ms 11 ms 10 ms
> 9 ft3.cnss56.Washington-DC.t3.ans.net (140.222.56.4) 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms
> 10 mf0.cnss58.Washington-DC.t3.ans.net (140.222.56.194) 14 ms 13 ms 12 ms
> 11 ft0.enss146.t3.ans.net (140.222.146.1) 13 ms 12 ms 11 ms
> 12 web1.hpc.org (192.187.8.59) 10 ms 15 ms 14 ms
>
> --SG
>
> ____________________________________________
> Steve Goldstein, National Science Foundation
> +1(703)306-1949 Ext. 1119
> "Let's not procrastinate until next week!"
>
>

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:

> Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose
> not to. Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it
> takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to
> deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router
> instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router.
>
> Avi

Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider
operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption
that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a
route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default
route is mostly pointless anyway?

What am I missing?

DS

> On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
>
> > Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose
> > not to. Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it
> > takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to
> > deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router
> > instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router.
> >
> > Avi
>
> Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider
> operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption
> that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a
> route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default
> route is mostly pointless anyway?
>
> What am I missing?
>
> DS

Sorry if this thread is taking too much space on NANOG. I didn't start it;
also, it's been suggested to me that inet-access may be a better forum this.

I'm not sure you're missing anything, but here are some things that we
consider:

a) It can take a minute or so, depending on link speed & router types,
to load 30k+ routes into a crisco. Therefore, if you have no default
route, even though your provider may have routes/connectivity to sites,
you may drop packets in the meantime.

b) Your provider may in fact have you statically routed even if they speak
BGP to you, you'd have to check - esp. if you're singly-homed. Ever since
mid-last year, the consensus was that localized flapping of connections
shouldn't be reflected in all of the routers on the 'net if at all possible.
(see appropriate pointers on route dampening and inserting Null0 routes)

c) It takes balls to risk dropping customer packets on the bet that just
because your provider doesn't have or hasn't told you a route to a
destination, they can't get there. It's a good bet, but not a sure one.

Avi

>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
>
> > Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose
> > not to. Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it
> > takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to
> > deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router
> > instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router.
> >
> > Avi
>
> Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider
> operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption
> that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a
> route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default
> route is mostly pointless anyway?
>
> What am I missing?
>
> DS

Because not all tier 1 providers have all routes. In fact, most
of them don't. They get "full" routes by peering with many others
or proxy aggregating and then trying to do the "right" thing.

It really depends on who/where you want to reach.

--
--bill

David,

I think what Avi meant was that if you take full routing table and
not using default, chances are that no matter how many backup providers you
have, you are still risking dropping packets on *YOUR* router if routes to a
particular location are lost. This makes you look bad when your customer
traceroutes.

If you have default then even if all the external routes
get lost you can still deliver the packets to your provider and let him
drop it. This looks favorable from your customer's traceroutes.

In practice, it is better to drop it as early as possible because
any additional delivery is unnecessary, but...

Jun
--
o o o o o o . . . ___========_T__ ___========================_T__
o _____ || Jun J Wu | | jun@wolfox.gsl.net |
.][__n_n_|DD[ ====____ | Global One | | http://wolfox.gsl.net/jun | |
>(________|__|_[________]_|_____________|__|____________________________|_|
__/oo OOOOO oo` ooo ooo 'o^o o^o` 'o^o o^o`

===== David ``Joel Katz'' Schwartz previously wrote: ====
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
>
> > Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose
> > not to. Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it
> > takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to
> > deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router
> > instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router.
> >
> > Avi
>
> Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider
> operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption
> that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a
> route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default
> route is mostly pointless anyway?
>
> What am I missing?
>

At 02:44 PM 4/8/96, David ``Joel Katz'' Schwartz wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
>
>> Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose
>> not to. Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it
>> takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to
>> deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router
>> instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router.
>>
>> Avi
>
> Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider
>operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption
>that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a
>route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default
>route is mostly pointless anyway?
>
> What am I missing?
>
> DS

you are missing the definitions of Peering vs. Transit.

craig

David,

You're right you don't need a default route. However, imagine
that you don't have confidence in the routing table entries.
Imagine a situation like this:

NAPX---NSP1a-------NSP1b-----NSP1c-----NSP1d-----NSP1e-----+
You

Imagine that you take full routing tables from NSP1e. There is a
bit of latency in him getting a route propogated, so conceivably
with some flapping issues, you might not have it if you wanted it.

So, what you could do is default to NSP1e. If you're multihomed,
as such:

NAPX---NSP1a-------NSP1b-----NSP1c-----NSP1d-----NSP1e-----+
| You
+-----NSP2a-------NSP2b-----------------------------------+

Concievably you could have wacky problems at 'you' which could
cause you to drop packets. By having a default, you entrusted the
delivery in those situations to one of your upstreams.

-alan

ps. we multihome to 2 providers, we take full routing tables, and
we don't have an external default. I'm not recommending the above
logic, just expounding on a possible explanation.....

......... David ``Joel Katz'' Schwartz is rumored to have said:
]
] On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
]
] > Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose
] > not to. Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it
] > takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to
] > deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router
] > instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router.
] >
] > Avi
]
] Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider
] operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption
] that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a
] route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default
] route is mostly pointless anyway?
]
] What am I missing?
]
] DS
]
]
]

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, David ``Joel Katz'' Schwartz wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
>
> > Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose
> > not to. Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it
> > takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to
> > deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router
> > instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router.
> >
> > Avi
>
> Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider
> operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption

Yes

> that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a
> route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default

Yes/No

> route is mostly pointless anyway?

Ok, why look through 30K routes instad of just sending all packets out the
default.

>
> What am I missing?

A lot.

Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc.
Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5
Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201
WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

In message <199604061333.IAA26828@netaxs.com>, Avi Freedman writes:
>
> No, the point is that {MCI, Sprint, ANS, UUNET, PSI, AGIS} would fail the
> test if you include all of the other, smaller, public exchange points.

A school district here has a (yet unfunded) plan to build a star of
56ks for the schools. A lot of major provider probably won't pull T3s
to it at their own expense. Does that make them not part of the core?

Just wondering where you draw the line. :-)

Curtis

Some nits.

In message <v01520d0bad8c60bc8902@[168.143.1.215]>, Howard C. Berkowitz writes:
> Here are my first thoughts on a tiered model, with attributes of each tier.
>
> Top level (Tier 1):
> -- provide transit as their principal business

principal IP business (some people provide voice services or do other
things).

> -- have at least some default-free routers

Span at least one continent with default-free routers. Are able to
provide customers with default free routing as an option.

> -- have connectivity at >1 geographically separated major exchange

Yes. And span these with default free routers (ie: taking full
routing at two routers and defaulting in the middle doesn't count).

> -- need special measures to deal with BGP scaling issues inside
> their AS (or multiple AS) such as confederations, clusters, etc.

or multiple AS to deal with scaling... but if a really hefty router
comes along or we ever are able inject AS paths into the IGP, this no
longer applies.

How about connection speed? At least a DS3 backbone? A redundant
backbone (no single circuit failure can partition the provider)?

Can we squeeze in 1.5:

-- provide transit as their principal business
-- have at least some default-free routers
-- have connectivity at >1 geographically separated major exchange
-- do not have a default free backbone
-- maybe cannot provide full routing to all but a few customers
-- maybe not redundant DS3s

Nobody in particular in mind here.

> 2nd Level
> -- provide transit within a geographic area
> -- may have default-free routers
> -- limit operations to a geographic area; may connect to multiple
> exchanges within that area

Connection speed? Is Nearnet (mostly New England) circa 1994
equivalent to some small provider with two T1s and a bunch of routers
in a limited geographic region? Again, having an providing full
routing is a big factor too.

> 3rd Level
> -- do not provide commercial transit services, although
> they may incidentally provide transit among their customers
> -- do not do BGP peering with any "downstream" organizations.
> Their user base is part of their AS.
> -- May peer with multiple upstream providers
>
> 4th Level
> -- do not run BGP
> -- Internet access through provider only
>
>

>worries me; this is like announcing at the UN that you can only vote
>if you have nuclear weapons. Some will be needless encouraged to add
>complexity to their networks simply to be a "Tier 1".

I like that! Are the "Tier 1" providers going to create a BGP
non-proliferation pact? I was wondering why AGIS, AT&T/BBNplanet,
MCI, and Sprint suddenly all needed to have their peering policies
reviewed by their lawyers at the same time.

I have this sinking feeling things are getting worse with people
trying to one-up each other. You can't be a "Tier 1" provider unless
your router config is 30,000 lines long. Well, my router config
is 40,000 lines long, so I'm even better. Perhaps the adage should
be "Making a network complicated is simple, but making a network
simple is complicated."

Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the
sake of complexity. Personally I find today's front-door peerings
infinitely easier to maintain than some of the backdoor monsters we
used to sneak around the AUP requirements. But if nasty looking
router configs is what it takes to be a Tier 1 provider, I can make
mine as grody looking as the next guy's.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation

| Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the
| sake of complexity.

Oh, please. I have no need to prove the size of my NSPness.
The complexity is there because it's needed to make things
WORK, so that you can get Internet connectivity.

You could help make things easier for everyone to help keep
you in business, rather than suggesting that people are out
to get you.

Sean.

Although Sprint requested I not contact its engineers, I'll make
and exception in this case.


>| Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the
>| sake of complexity.
>
>Oh, please. I have no need to prove the size of my NSPness.

I would appreciate it if you showed me the same courtesy.


>The complexity is there because it's needed to make things
>WORK, so that you can get Internet connectivity.

I'm very aware how well things are working. I have lots and lots
of customers that feel things are working so well they've spent
their own money to buy separate network lines to St. Louis because
of the way things are "working."


>You could help make things easier for everyone to help keep
>you in business, rather than suggesting that people are out
>to get you.

The problem is you keep helping stay in this network business, I've
been trying to get out of it.

We've been trying to make things easier for customers to stay with
their current network providers. We installed additional lines on
the east coast, west coast, and Canada and offered to peer at additional
places so other networks don't need to haul packets more than necessary
and hopefully relieve some congestion.

Instead some providers choose not to use the alternate paths we provided,
but prefer to play hot potato with packets sending them twice around the
continent. The result is customers ended up with and average of 31% packet
loss between St. Louis and Dallas today. So customers feel the need to
buy even more lines to St. Louis.

My network business is growing like crazy, but you're killing my real
business with your "help." I'm trying to help you keep your customers,
why won't you accept the offer?
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Sean Doran wrote:

> | Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the
> | sake of complexity.
>
> Oh, please. I have no need to prove the size of my NSPness.
> The complexity is there because it's needed to make things
> WORK, so that you can get Internet connectivity.
>
> You could help make things easier for everyone to help keep
> you in business, rather than suggesting that people are out
> to get you.

Sean, the problem is that peopel are out to get you. I don't know why this
is, but it is true.

Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc.
Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5
Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201
WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

| Sean, the problem is that peopel are out to get you. I don't know why this
| is, but it is true.

It's because I'm an evil asshole determined to protect my
employer's interests and make our shareholders rich.

This is somewhat incompatible with protecting the interests
of our competitors and enriching their shareholders.

It is not, however, incompatible with inexpensive access
to the Internet through providers who are geared towards
offering local support, nor is it incompatible with
other clever organizations making money on the Internet too.

Personally, I have little patience for the small and
not-very-clueful who want to be direct competitors with a
multibillion dollar company with lots of talent and who are
taken to whining about my policies and those of my
colleagues and associates, and even those of our
competitors. This uncharitable attitude obviously does not
endear me to them.

I would hope, though, that the bulk of our customers
would be much happier with us driving towards a network
reliable enough that they don't have to worry about their
customers screaming (not to mention not having to worry
about facing some very difficult scaling problems we are
already staring at), than with us being the Department of
Warm and Fuzzy Feelings.

All of them know full well that the drive ain't easy.

Sean.

Of course, it could also be paranoia, perhaps brought
on by the delusion that this was nanog and not com-priv... ;>

TFAAML?

Sean.

>Sean, the problem is that peopel are out to get you. I don't know why this
>is, but it is true.

>Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!

I could tell you... but then I'd have to kill you...
Really, people are only out to get Sean because they
don't want to sign Vadim's NDA...

E

Ob NANOG Whine:

A new company showed up in town today: FlashNet out of somewhere, Tx.
One of our customers called them up and asked "How do you connect to the net?"
"We have our own DS3"

He asked "Who do you peer with?"
"Huh? We have our own DS3 backbone. We are the Internet."

It's interesting that lawyers get to become law-makers, so they can pass
laws that say if you're not a lawyer, then you have to tell everyone you're
not a lawyer before you open your mouth. For instance:
"I'm not a lawyer and only lawyers can give legal advice but..."

It would be nice if NSPs/ISPs could pass restrictions, so that if you're
just a Couple-Kids-With-T1 you have to start every sentence with
"We're not licensed to practice IP transit, but..."

......... Nathan Stratton is rumored to have said:
] On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Sean Doran wrote:

] > | Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the
] > | sake of complexity.
] >
] > You could help make things easier for everyone to help keep
] > you in business, rather than suggesting that people are out
] > to get you.
]
] Sean, the problem is that peopel are out to get you. I don't know why this
] is, but it is true.

People are out to get smd for the same reason they have been out
to get people throughout history. He's smart, he's right, and he's
moving the world forward.

They crucified Jesus. Let's see if we haven't evolved a bit.

-alan

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Alan Hannan wrote:

> ......... Nathan Stratton is rumored to have said:
> ] Sean, the problem is that peopel are out to get you. I don't know why this
> ] is, but it is true.
>
> People are out to get smd for the same reason they have been out
> to get people throughout history. He's smart, he's right, and he's
> moving the world forward.

Sean's smart, he's mostly right, and he's insistant on moving the world in a
direction. Some of us agree with where he wants to take the world, but we do
get confused sometimes by how he wants to take us there.

Perhaps a wee bit more patience, even accounting for his busy schedule, shown
to those of us a bit confused some of those things might make all of get there
faster and more smoothly.

I don't have a particular comment about those who can't see beyond their
collective noses, however. ;)

> They crucified Jesus. Let's see if we haven't evolved a bit.

Have you been watching the US presidential race? ;)

-dorian

> It's because I'm an evil asshole determined to protect my
> employer's interests and make our shareholders rich.
>
> This is somewhat incompatible with protecting the interests
> of our competitors and enriching their shareholders.
>
cut
>
> Personally, I have little patience for the small and
> not-very-clueful who want to be direct competitors with a
> multibillion dollar company with lots of talent and who are
> taken to whining about my policies and those of my
> colleagues and associates, and even those of our
> competitors. This uncharitable attitude obviously does not
> endear me to them.
>
These whiners will be the same "evil asshole" when they, although
it is very unlikely to happen, build their own national/international
backbone and won't peer with the regionals.

Why is Sean getting the pleasant compliments about a VERY logical
business move on behalf of his company? People need to wisen up
and realize that this industry isn't about free things anymore..
it revolves soley around money. Anyone that's into free help..
please call me. We are looking for cheap labor.

Rob

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Sean Doran wrote:

> | Sean, the problem is that peopel are out to get you. I don't know why this
> | is, but it is true.
>
> It's because I'm an evil asshole determined to protect my
> employer's interests and make our shareholders rich.

:-)

> This is somewhat incompatible with protecting the interests
> of our competitors and enriching their shareholders.
>
> It is not, however, incompatible with inexpensive access
> to the Internet through providers who are geared towards
> offering local support, nor is it incompatible with
> other clever organizations making money on the Internet too.

Yes, because you can't make money in local dialup.

> Personally, I have little patience for the small and
> not-very-clueful who want to be direct competitors with a
> multibillion dollar company with lots of talent and who are
> taken to whining about my policies and those of my
> colleagues and associates, and even those of our
> competitors. This uncharitable attitude obviously does not
> endear me to them.


Well I as for one am going to try, hay I am only 19 if I get screwed I can
do something else.

> I would hope, though, that the bulk of our customers
> would be much happier with us driving towards a network
> reliable enough that they don't have to worry about their
> customers screaming (not to mention not having to worry
> about facing some very difficult scaling problems we are
> already staring at), than with us being the Department of
> Warm and Fuzzy Feelings.


I was one, and was not happy at all. The service was vary vary bad, and I
also have people lined up to jump off you guys.

> All of them know full well that the drive ain't easy.

True.

Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc.
Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5
Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201
WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:

> These whiners will be the same "evil asshole" when they, although
> it is very unlikely to happen, build their own national/international
> backbone and won't peer with the regionals.

NO way.

> Why is Sean getting the pleasant compliments about a VERY logical
> business move on behalf of his company? People need to wisen up
> and realize that this industry isn't about free things anymore..
> it revolves soley around money. Anyone that's into free help..
> please call me. We are looking for cheap labor.

Because UUNet, Netcom, MCI, are MUCH easier to work with then sprint. He
is not just some other NSP. He is the only NSP that will not peer with
me. :-)

Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc.
Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5
Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201
WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

> People are out to get smd for the same reason they have been out
> to get people throughout history. He's smart, he's right, and he's
> moving the world forward.

People aren't out to get smd. Most people don't even know or care who
smd is. Customers know and care about the results they get. Not who
got them, or how many billions was spent getting them.

Naturally, its up to each network provider to decide how they want to
run their network and their company. If they do an adequate job, their
customers will be happy, and their employer and shareholders will be
happy.

Different providers make different choices running their network. Some
providers think they run a better network sending traffic through a few
circuitous routes. Other providers think they run a better network using
more direct routes. History will tell which providers made the right
choice.

P.S. I wonder why Mr. Doran thought I was speaking of Sprint when I
mentioned complexity for complexities sake. I was actually thinking
about the ATM network fiascos. I'm glad to hear talented people at
multi-billion dollar companies think only the complexity needed to get
the job done was used by talented people at multi-multi-billion dollar
companies.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation