Re: Public Works Peering
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, J. Oquendo wrote: Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my previous idea `could` work for all parties. Of course those making financial decisions would likely hate this idea since it would somehow manage to "hurt" their business in their eyes... States (or countries) would create a massive public NAP which would be peered in each state. Guaranteed not to go down. Well 99.9% (snicker) guaranteed not to falter. This network would be funded by taxpayer dollars and anyone wanting to peer would pay solely enough to maintain this NAP. A few models to look at (based mostly on things I've heard rather than studying closely, so corrections are welcome): Saudi Arabia -- Government run monopoly transit provider. Interconnects the licensed ISPs locally and provides international transit and content filtering. India -- Government imposed manditory MLPA with paid settlements. Designed to convince VSNL (the monopoly international transit provider) to announce all their routes to all peers, but not having the desired effect. Various other places -- Non-government MLPAs. Industry run exchanges, with an MLPA as a condition for participating. Often done through route servers. I think Hong Kong is the biggest example of this, with the route server announcing 13,000 routes. Really common in smaller exchanges in areas where there's huge (orders of magnitude) difference between transit and peering costs. There are also a few exchanges without route servers, but where peering negotiation gets done on mailing lists readable by the other members, which looks very strange to my American eyes. The non-government MLPAs seem to work reasonably well in some places. The two examples of Government regulation above don't appear to have led to significantly lower prices, usually the goal of peering. US networks tend not to like MLPAs because it reduces control, and do seem to be good at keeping prices down in the major metropolitan areas, so it's possible US peering coordinators are at least doing things in one of the possible right ways. -Steve
Re: Public Works Peering
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 10:26 -0400, J. Oquendo wrote: > Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my > previous idea `could` work for all parties. Of course those making > financial decisions would likely hate this idea since it would somehow > manage to "hurt" their business in their eyes... > > States (or countries) would create a massive public NAP which would be > peered in each state. Guaranteed not to go down. Well 99.9% (snicker) > guaranteed not to falter. This network would be funded by taxpayer dollars > and anyone wanting to peer would pay solely enough to maintain this NAP. Marinate and weird are certainly . How is this radically different from current public NAPs, funded by their members without profit as the main driving force and what good would it do? Dragging governments to places we'd normally wouldn't want them? Please let this idea rest in pieces. Cheers, Erik -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Re: Public Works Peering
> > > /* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning > > */ > > > > Let me be the first to congratulate you on such > > an excellent idea. > > Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my > previous idea `could` work for all parties. Somehow I think you have missed the truly great idea in your first message... Hint: the best ideas are simple and elegant and can often be explained in a single sentence! --Michael Dillon
Re: Public Works Peering
A consortium of companies using this NAP would engineer the network since most times government officials have little clue on the engineering side of things, nor would they understand it more than those already in the industry. Having read this thread, I'm going to assume most of the engineers who want to peer there, are no more qualified than said government officials. This NAP would be unbiased as to "my bgp tables are bigger than yours" arguments, and would pass traffic unbiased to most destinations without flaw. the time of MLPA has long since passed, let it rest in peace. J. Oquendo -- James
Public Works Peering
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > /* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning > */ > > Let me be the first to congratulate you on such > an excellent idea. > > --Michael Dillon > > Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my previous idea `could` work for all parties. Of course those making financial decisions would likely hate this idea since it would somehow manage to "hurt" their business in their eyes... States (or countries) would create a massive public NAP which would be peered in each state. Guaranteed not to go down. Well 99.9% (snicker) guaranteed not to falter. This network would be funded by taxpayer dollars and anyone wanting to peer would pay solely enough to maintain this NAP. A consortium of companies using this NAP would engineer the network since most times government officials have little clue on the engineering side of things, nor would they understand it more than those already in the industry. This NAP would be unbiased as to "my bgp tables are bigger than yours" arguments, and would pass traffic unbiased to most destinations without flaw. I'm not one for any type of government intervention but at current pace, how long would it be before the lawsuits start coming out of de-peering (is that actually a term). In the long run it is not beneficial in my eyes for companies to start shafting each other via capitalistic methods of who will pass traffic to whomever else. I know for one as the end user, I would be highly upset if two separate companies depeered and affected my company's workflow. I would also be even more upset if somehow de-peering affected my life/lifestyle or that of my family in some capacity. Think of something along the lines of dare I say "national security" for INSERT_YOUR_COUNTRY_HERE. What if two main infrastructures were broken because someone de-peered from another provider. Far Fetched Scenario: Lt. Jones "Sir we've lost all connections with $FOOBAR_DEPARTMENT... People can die if we don't get the proper information..." Senior Lt. Doe "How did this happen! We have a delivery of medical supplies... Track them down." Lt. Jones "We can't sir. We have no connectivity" Senior Lt. Doe "What do you mean" Lt. Jones "Well a provider de-peered..." Sure it's far fetched to a degree, but there are industries outside of government that could seriously be affected by de-peering actions. Health industries, say the insurance companies right now helping out natural disaster victims... I could think of an insane amount of scenarios that could happen because of actions such as those taken by L3 and Cogent. Somewhere along this thread is a VOIP thread spinoff... So what about people who can't dial (e-)911 right now. People can die if you think about the worst case scenario because of nothing more than greed. So for those who reply back with some "go to hell" like message I suggest you go back to your core and read up on ethics and morals before putting a dollar sign on a life. /* EOF MORAL RAMBLINGS */ Anyhow, I could see a benefit to having say a public works NAP. Outside of monopolistic reach working rather well. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x97B43D89 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x97B43D89 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey
