RE: Refusing Pings on Core Routers??? A new trend?
> Q: "As part of this, can you tell me why your router is prohibiting > packets being sent to our interface?" > > A:" The reason you cannot hit your interface is it is blocked for > security reasons." > > [...] > > What the heck is going on lately? Have we returned to the time where > we've started trying to hide lacks of capacity instead of fixing them?? You would be mistaken to think that a router's lack of responsiveness to your queries is indicative of forwarding capacity issues. To ask your question from the opposite point of view, are there any operators of large networks today that don't filter and police traffic destined for the control/management plane of their routers? Anticipating the answer to that question: I think it is only reasonable to limit the impact that random strangers can have on my network's stability. Your ability to traceroute is valuable, but not more valuable than my network's uptime. Cheers, -Benson
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
If the core is "well run" (not normally over-utilized) and the endpoints have adequate capacity, then you *can* guarantee the call. (where "guarantee" represents a quality *approaching* 100%, as defined in SLAs...) I assume we're not talking about poorly-run cores here. So what I think you're getting at is, when you don't control both endpoints (i.e., to ensure they have adequate capacity) then you can't make end-to-end guarantees. This is clearly true, in telephone networks as well as packet networks. But it doesn't lessen the value of QoS mechanisms. To reluctantly further the telephone analogy: If all 23 bearers on my PRI are busy I still might want to allow certain sources to complete calls to me, even if that means dropping an existing call. This is a local function that I can guarantee, which benefits end to end communication even if it doesn't guarantee it. And if I coordinate this local function at both endpoints then I'm back to my first statement, that you can guarantee end to end. Are you suggesting that QoS has no value unless it can do more than this? Or am I misunderstanding you? A more interesting question is how to make end-to-end guarantees between endpoints that are on different cores, assuming the endpoints themselves are under a common control. If the provider overrides customer QoS preferences, is this possible? Cheers, -Benson -Original Message- From: Hannigan, Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 15 December, 2005 16:00 To: Schliesser, Benson; Randy Bush Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet] > > > Randy- > > I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. > > I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer > buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you can't guarantee you won't get a busy signal when you make a call. -M<
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Randy- I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But as ISPs we don't sell this. As a network operator, I do sell various kinds of point-to-point connections with fixed/guaranteed rates. But when I sell "Internet", or L3VPN, etc., I'm selling end-to-end packet-switched full-mesh connectivity. In this service, not all endpoints are equal and traffic patterns are not fixed. I.e., the service is flexible. "QoS" is about giving the customer control over what/how traffic gets treated/dropped. It's not false advertising. That said, if QoS controls are used to enforce the provider's preferences and not the customers' then I might agree with the false advertising label. If the result is to have anti-competitive effects then I might have some harsher labels for it, too. Cheers, -Benson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 22:32 To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: Fergie; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet] > Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion > or is never "busy". s/never/when there are not multiple serious cuts/ would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get their money back? we're selling delivery of packets at some bandwidth. we should deliver it. otherwise, it's called false advertising. randy
RE: Two Tiered Internet
Hi. I agree with your comments re customers. (residential customers, in particular) At risk of being flamed, what I'd propose is that regulators should put effort into understanding whether the basic service is broken. If it's not broken then perhaps it is reasonable to allow provider-prioritized traffic. (i.e., if the provider offers a good SLA for basic traffic and lives up to it even in the presence of prioritized traffic) On the other hand, if the provider doesn't guarantee a quality basic service then their request to "prioritize" is in bad-faith; they will effectively be de-prioritizing the basic service. Cheers, -Benson -Original Message- From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 09:36 To: Schliesser, Benson Cc: Per Heldal; NANOG Subject: Re: Two Tiered Internet Hello; My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort into understanding nuances of what they are being offered, that they will always complain to the people they are paying money to, and that if you think that a good use of your bandwidth with your customers (a business's most precious commodity) is to explain to them why it's a good thing that your service is broken, you're crazy. On Dec 14, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Schliesser, Benson wrote: > > Marshall Eubanks wrote: > >> If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second >> that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel >> not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this >> be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? > > So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the absolute quality > of the common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the baseline). > > If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced Internet, > then who > would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? Of course, I > don't currently have an SLA for my personal cable-modem or DSL > services... > A friend of mine who is also on Cox (and on this list) called up and complained enough to get an SLA from them. I wish I had one. I test a lot of streaming here at home, and I notice when Cox has one of their very frequent 15 second outages. Or their also frequent 5 minute periods of 80-90% packet loss. When Verizon puts their FTTH out here to Clifton, I think I'll get that too and try and multi-home (through tunnels, as I'm certainly not paying either for BGP). Hmm, maybe there's a product there... Regards Marshall > Cheers, > -Benson
RE: Two Tiered Internet
Marshall Eubanks wrote: > If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second > that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel > not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this > be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the absolute quality of the common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the baseline). If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced Internet, then who would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? Of course, I don't currently have an SLA for my personal cable-modem or DSL services... Cheers, -Benson
RE: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
Thinking of "services" in terms of /etc/services will get you nowhere with this. It's like using the term "best effort" to a lawyer. It's all about context. -Benson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 11 November, 2005 01:44 To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill] > Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering > broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can > you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course I > can hear you. Have you sent a letter to your congressional representative saying this? Of course an explanation of the technical terms "80" and "25" would be in order as well. Complaints on the NANOG list carry no weight in the Congress. --Michael Dillon
RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Schliesser, Benson") writes:
>
>> Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater
benefit:
>> the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes?
>>
>> If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by
>> their respective (different) service providers (all other issues
being
>> equal) is one provider in a better position than the other?
>
> If it's still common for one to be billed only for "highest of in vs.
out"
> then there's no way to compare the benefits since there's always a
"shadow"
> direction and it won't be symmetric among flow endpoints.
Thank you, Paul. I'd be interested in your feedback on these thoughts of
mine below.
I do believe it is typical, perhaps with some variance but usually
amounting to the same thing, that end-users are billed for the "highest
of in vs. out" traffic, roughly the capacity they are provisioned. Thus
if I may, I'll build on this to make a more concrete statement: each
party in a peering relationship receives equal value for traffic
exchanged. (traffic volume at the SFI translates into revenue from
end-users)
Things aren't so simple in reality, though: you have to look at the
element left out of my statement above, the "cost" of traffic exchanged.
If one peer terminates more traffic than it originates, and the
originating peer is performing "hot-potato" routing, then the
terminating peer typically has a higher cost burden as it has to
transport the traffic the greater distance. However the opposite holds
true if the originating peer is performing "cold-potato" routing.
Thus, such things exist as traffic in/out ratios between peers. But this
is a blunt tool which seems to help enforce the exclusivity of the
Tier-1 club, and actually acts as a barrier to competition. That is,
anybody with a different traffic pattern (i.e., because of a different
business model) will be excluded from the club despite the fact that
they bring equal value in the form of traffic volume to the
relationship. And club-outsiders are subject to increased relative
operating costs (cost of revenue) compared to club-insiders.
So what is the solution? "Warm-potato" routing seems possible
technically, providing an approximation of cost-burden fairness. Is the
benefit worth the complexity to manage in practice? And clearly, I'm not
advocating endless open peering--the revenue element of the equation
(customers) must exist. So what is the best way to determine the
criteria by which a network is determined to be a "peer"?
Cheers,
-Benson
---
Benson Schliesser
(email) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I barely understand my own thoughts, much worse those of my betters.
Thus, the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my
employer. Ponder them at your own risk.
RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
> What is "Internet"? Let's channel Seth Breidbart briefly and call it > the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric > closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP packet from". It > should be clear that the nature and extent of this network depends > very much on the perspective of the connected device from which is it > measured. At last, a definition we can all agree on! ;) Honestly this might be closest to the truth, but it's not quite the perception that the marauding forces of marketing have encouraged over the previous 10 years. Rather, the market which exists to support ISPs tends not to include people who understand the nature of the network, and its instability. Sadly, for many of the market constituents the "Internet" equates to the "Web"; for some of them it equates to a platform to support their applications; for very few of them does it equate to a unique perspective into a subset of possible IP relationships. As I said, this definition is closest to the reality today, but not even everybody on this knowledgeable mailing list feels happy with buying such a service, no less so the end-users at large. > Do people in Spain complain that they can't call numbers starting > with +350, and insist on getting money back from their monthly bill? > Or do they accept that their government has an ongoing dispute with > the UK over whether Gibraltar is in fact part of Spain? Good counter-example. Instead of trying to compare how this example of political dispute and the resulting customer satisfaction or frustration is similar to the Cogent-Level(3) situation, I'll simply acknowledge that my analogy, like most, is imperfect. I still hold to my fundamental point, however. The market has evolved to expect more than "Internet as an research experiment/hobbyist toy", and now expects the "Internet" to be a component of their critical infrastructure. Service providers that don't understand this, in addition to having unsatisfied customers, may perhaps incur outside intervention. Would that ultimately be so bad for end-users? Cheers, -Benson --- Benson Schliesser (email) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I barely understand my own thoughts, much worse those of my betters. Thus, the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer. Ponder them at your own risk.
RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
> I would think in NANOG that one would know the simple fact that 'The Complete > Internet' is complete and utter fiction, and does not exist. What does exist > is a complex, dynamic, even stochastic set of relationships between > autonomous networks, who can pick and choose their relationships at whim. Customers don't want to pay for a "stochastic set of relationships", they will pay for the "Internet" however. It's like paying for a telephone that could only call a subset of the world's telephone users. And the solution (assuming you wanted global reachability) was to buy multiple telephone services from different providers, but even then the reachability that those providers offered would change over time. Would you be happy to rely on telephone for critical business (or other) functions? Call me crazy if you'd like, but I tend to think that peering on the Internet is too important... -Benson --- Benson Schliesser (email) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I barely understand my own thoughts, much worse those of my betters. Thus, the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer. Ponder them at your own risk.
RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
Michael Dillon wrote: > P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic > exchange was paid for and there was no settlement > free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid > full transit and paid partial transit on the menu? Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit: the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes? If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by their respective (different) service providers (all other issues being equal) is one provider in a better position than the other? Cheers, -Benson
