BBN Peering issues

If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues,
please drop me an email, or call.

Dave Rand
+1 408 254-7111

If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues,
please drop me an email, or call.

I would like to communicate openly and publicly about this.

What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from
high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what
their rationale is behind it.

That is, a public explanation other than the all-too-obvious "We're
greedy. Welcome to the business world. We're not going to change our
minds, so shut the fuck up and buy some transit, you dumb suckers."

Though I must admit that what I've heard may be biased, as I've heard from
the opressees moreso than the opressors, this sounds like an issue driven
by sheer stupidity and capitalism on BBN's behalf. Certainly does not
seem to be in their best interest, or the best interest of the Internet as
a whole. Of course, I could be mistaken, which is why I'd like some word
from BBN.

Rather than limit this issue to within the confines of private
communication, I would like to see it carried out as a very vocal and
lively public one. That way, the general public will be able to make an
educated decision regarding whether or not to purchase transit from
BBN/GTE, in light of this.

Regards,
Adam

The issue seems to be better adressed
as follows:

  Should "Tier 1" providers insist on private peering rather
than public?

  It's a complicated issue, as there is zero fabric loss
across a customer/private interconnect circuit. The ability to deliver
such traffic provides a better service with only one place to put the blame,
on a full circuit, rather than a congested exchange point, where you can
blame the exchange point operator, and both providers involved for
overcomitting their network capacity into the exchange point.

  It provides a much more managable connection model as to
provide the best quality of service because of the state of the
exchange fabrics.

  The question that looms then is should they discount their
connection if it will be peering-only rather than normal transit?

  That is a bit more complicated issue and needs to be adressed
between you and the provider(s) in question for your invididual case.
All BBN/GTE, and i'm sure every other network provider out there are
concerned about is the ability to exchange traffic with the least
amount of loss.

  If none of their customers complain, you're less likeley to
get anything.

  Host the next hot web site on the internet, the yahoo,infoseek,
espn.com,cnn.com's.

  those will get you more notice. If you're not going to dump more
than 10Mbps of traffic shared across all the points, I would just buy
a connection. You're obviously sending this traffic somewhere now.

  - Jared

> If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues,
> please drop me an email, or call.

I would like to communicate openly and publicly about this.

What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from
high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what
their rationale is behind it.

You know what is behind it, you mentioned it two paragraphs below,
capitalism. BBN can make more money this way. The first thing they
teach you in Business 100 is that the purpose of a business is to make a
profit. BBN can make more profits by not peering with every ISP who wants
to peer with them.

That is, a public explanation other than the all-too-obvious "We're
greedy. Welcome to the business world. We're not going to change our
minds, so shut the fuck up and buy some transit, you dumb suckers."

Well they may give some lame technical reason like our routers were
overloaded or something, but I doubt it.

Though I must admit that what I've heard may be biased, as I've heard from
the opressees moreso than the opressors, this sounds like an issue driven
by sheer stupidity and capitalism on BBN's behalf. Certainly does not
seem to be in their best interest, or the best interest of the Internet as
a whole. Of course, I could be mistaken, which is why I'd like some word
from BBN.

Well basically you need to think of it like this. If the providers that
are getting cut were actually "peers" of BBN, then BBN would feal the
pain, in fact they are not "peers". BBN can cut them off their network and
will not feal a thing. BBN customers will still be able to reach the cut
ISPs from their transit providers. If the providers were "peer" then when
BBN tried to cut them they both would feal the pain and BBN would most
likley turn it back up in a hour or so.

Rather than limit this issue to within the confines of private
communication, I would like to see it carried out as a very vocal and
lively public one. That way, the general public will be able to make an
educated decision regarding whether or not to purchase transit from
BBN/GTE, in light of this.

Well, in the past this stuff was resolved under NDAs. If you don't see a
lot of ISPs talking then most likely BBN just had them sign a NDA and
worked something out.

Regards,
Adam

<>

Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting
www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net

Well basically you need to think of it like this. If the providers that
are getting cut were actually "peers" of BBN, then BBN would feal the
pain, in fact they are not "peers". BBN can cut them off their network and
will not feal a thing. BBN customers will still be able to reach the cut
ISPs from their transit providers. If the providers were "peer" then when
BBN tried to cut them they both would feal the pain and BBN would most
likley turn it back up in a hour or so.

I was under the impression that, by this definition, BBN considered Exodus
to be a "peer". Is this not the case?

I've heard the two line explanation of what BBN is doing. Will anyone
indulge my curiosity and give me the low down on what the issue is?
We're lighting fiber into their new Beaverton POP, and I'd like to ask
our wholesale rep/engineer about this.

Michael

> If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues,
> please drop me an email, or call.

I would like to communicate openly and publicly about this.

What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from
high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what
their rationale is behind it.

That is, a public explanation other than the all-too-obvious "We're
greedy. Welcome to the business world. We're not going to change our
minds, so shut the fuck up and buy some transit, you dumb suckers."

Though I must admit that what I've heard may be biased, as I've heard from
the opressees moreso than the opressors, this sounds like an issue driven
by sheer stupidity and capitalism on BBN's behalf. Certainly does not

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
As an aside, would you prefer a socialist approach towards networking?

Also, let's not forget: Essentially, the pain that will be felt by
GTE/BBN is disconnecting themselves from many popular and high-volume web
sites, including geocities, hotmail, sony, tripod/lycos,
cbs sportsline, etc.

As for any comments made by GTE/BBN regarding uneven traffic flow, I would
sure as hell hope that is the case. Surely an HTTP 'GET' request consumes
less bandwidth than the content spewed back. Then again, GTE/BBN may be
too caught up to realize this, as they could very well be laughing their
asses off all the way to the bank.

> What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from
> high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what
> their rationale is behind it.

Here is a news story from yesterday with quotes from John Curran
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980810h.html

You know what is behind it, you mentioned it two paragraphs below,
capitalism. BBN can make more money this way.

That is yet to be seen. If this move reduces the quality of connectivity
for their customers they could lose a lot of business too.

Err, you are missing something. Obviously GTE knows this, that is the
point of killing the peering. The question is, is the method the GTE is
using to determine who should pay for transit accurate? Turn it around;
why shouldn't BBN pay Exodus to terminate the traffic for them?

It just strikes me as odd that BBN is trying to [essentially] apply a
telecom-accepted/FCC-tarrifed method of termination payments to IP
packets.

In effect, what BBN is doing is revolutionary. However, in my opinion, it
is sad to see essentially one of the founders of the Internet to bend the
Internet over and break out the Vaseline. However, that is just my
opinion.

I wonder what Sprint and MCI's position is on this... Will we see them
doing that same?

As for any comments made by GTE/BBN regarding uneven traffic flow, I would
sure as hell hope that is the case. Surely an HTTP 'GET' request consumes
less bandwidth than the content spewed back. Then again, GTE/BBN may be
too caught up to realize this, as they could very well be laughing their
asses off all the way to the bank.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                  Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
       I route, therefore I am.
       Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member
               Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer
     Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834
Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Depending on who gives in first, and when.

If Exodus breaks down and purchases connectivity from someone to get to
BBN, then obviously is will not effect BBN in the slightest. If Exodus
buys BBN routes from someone other than BBN (sprint, mci), then it gets
quite funny; more PX's or MAE's get overloaded with traffic that was
privately between Exodus and BBN, and BBN has caused one of its
competitors (MCI/Sprint/whoever Exodus ends up buying from (if they do))
to gain more revunue flow.

Considering that BBN is the one who cut peering with Exodus, I presume
Exodus will have a bad taste in thier mouth, and not buy from BBN (I could
guess that BBN assumed this also).

With all this in mond, BBN, IMHO, made a horrendously poor choice.

BBN, turning peering into a boys club.

That is yet to be seen. If this move reduces the quality of connectivity
for their customers they could lose a lot of business too.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                  Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
       I route, therefore I am.
       Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member
               Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer
     Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834
Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

How is this differnt than the case with Sprint?

I believe BBN was pressured by GTEI to do this and could isolate BBN and GETI
from peering with the internetwork, from a severe market backlash from
decisions
deemed harmful to the fabric of the internet itself, I am dismayed at this
greed.

Henry R. Linneweh

alex@nac.net wrote:

Yo Alex!

With all this in mond, BBN, IMHO, made a horrendously poor choice.

Yes. Their service quality will continue to fall.

BBN, turning peering into a boys club.

Nope, they just shortend the membership list again.

RGDS
GARY

Thus spake Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> on Wed, Aug 12, 1998:

> > What I would like more than anything right now is some official word from
> > high-up's at BBN regarding what this policy entails exactly, and what
> > their rationale is behind it.

Here is a news story from yesterday with quotes from John Curran
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980810h.html

> You know what is behind it, you mentioned it two paragraphs below,
> capitalism. BBN can make more money this way.

That is yet to be seen. If this move reduces the quality of connectivity
for their customers they could lose a lot of business too.

Hey! I'm an ISP too! When do I get my free BBN peering??!?! You mean I've been
paying for BBN all this time? Jeez, I feel dumb...

From the article:
                   "It appears that the result of this action will
                    harm BBN and its customers substantially more
                    than it will harm our customers," said Exodus
                    President Ellen Hancock in an Aug. 5 letter to
                    customers.

This statement is deluded to say the least. BBN peers with most other major
backbone providers, and they have one of the fastest, most reliable networks in
the world. Say Ms. Hancock ends up buying transit from Digex or UUnet. Under
most current hot-potato routing schemes, that carrier will drop the packet at
the closest BBN peering point, and the web page will continue on its merry way
through BBN to the BBN customer. Three or four more hops added at the max. It
probably wouldn't even be noticeable.

If she buys transit from a not-so-well-connected provider, crappy performance
will be universal and not confined to BBN, ass-uming there's no spiteful
routing policies inserted on her end for BBN customers. (Route all BBN-bound
packets through the BRI link to spitoon.net?) Somehow I doubt that will be the
case.

Exodus *does* face some hard business decisions. Unfortunately, blaming BBN
isn't going to do much to help Exodus. Capitalists trashing capitalism? Please.

Exodus *does* face some hard business decisions. Unfortunately, blaming BBN
isn't going to do much to help Exodus. Capitalists trashing capitalism? Please.

It is my understanding that BBN is even hesitant to peer with Exodus
PUBLICLY. Exodus does not buy transit from anyone, so that would
result in total inaccessability, no? How would that be in anyone's best
interest? If anyone knows otherwise, please do speak up.

If this is, indeed, the case, then it really sucks for Exodus, given their
transit-free nature.

But...do Above.net and Exodus.net actually buy transit from anyone, or are
they each large enough that they just connect to the various NAPs and have
free peering with all the other major networks? If they don't buy transit
from any other backbone, and lose peering with BBN, what path will packets
between BBN and either of the two above take?

Uh-cough.

From nitrous, just one network block:

*>i199.245.183.0 209.185.9.157 2000000000 100 0 3967 i
* 192.41.177.240 7 90 0 1800 1239 3967 i
* i 209.185.9.157 2000000000 100 0 3967 i
* 192.41.177.241 69 100 0 1239 3967 i

It looks like Exodus buys transit from Sprint to me.

-Deepak.

Based on just that little slice of the conversation, is BBN doing what
UUnet apparently failed in _it's_ attempt to do last fall, to Jack
Rickard's (and my) vast amusement?

Cheers,
-- jra

And that's why as a BBN customer in Florida, the only rout I have to
most of the rest of the world is through MAE-East?

I don't think so.

Cheers,
-- jra

None.

And when BBN customers call Exodus customers to ask why they can't get
through, I hope Exodus has informed them (before that happens) why and what
they should do with their BBN contracts.

(hint: paper shredders make wonderful confetti).