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
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
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
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
