We do not have transit. Whomever showed the traceroute via Sprint must
be using a Sprint connected host, so they need to check their facts.
It's real easy, if BBN takes the PXs down, there will be disconnectivity.
To the best of my knowledge, CRL also has a similar condition.
Rob
Exodus
Sounds like a high stakes game of Internet Peering Chicken. Who gets
damaged the most when BBN customers complain they cannot access Exodus and
Abovenet customers, and Exodus and Abovenet customers complain they cannot
be accessed by BBN customers? If I were a BBN customer, I'd be pissed.
If I were hosted by Abovenet, I wouldn't be too happy either.
Perhaps BBN management just passed a course in Tearing up the Internet
for fun and profit.
> We do not have transit. Whomever showed the traceroute via Sprint must
> be using a Sprint connected host, so they need to check their facts.
> It's real easy, if BBN takes the PXs down, there will be disconnectivity.
> To the best of my knowledge, CRL also has a similar condition.Sounds like a high stakes game of Internet Peering Chicken. Who gets
damaged the most when BBN customers complain they cannot access Exodus and
Abovenet customers, and Exodus and Abovenet customers complain they cannot
be accessed by BBN customers? If I were a BBN customer, I'd be pissed.
If I were hosted by Abovenet, I wouldn't be too happy either.
That is one thing I don't understand about the aversion to peering. We
peer with anyone who will either pay the line costs or connect to us over
Bell FR, where the costs are negligible. Granted, we are small potatoes in
the ISP field, but to my way of thinking both parties benefit. There is
a customer here communicating with a customer there. Both ISPs are getting
money from their customer to get connectivity to the other ISP's customer.
Dropping the peering connection degrades connectivity for both ISPs'
customers.
I understand that there is a an issue about a smaller player using the
larger player's long-haul links for transport, but in this case it seems
that Exodus is neither a significantly smaller player nor are they using
BBN's links for long-haul. In fact, it seems that if Exodus were to purchase
transit, all that traffic would be moved to a single peering point between
BBN and whoever they purchased traffic from, which *would* be using BBN's
long-haul network. Not to mention that the asymmetry of that link would
become the same level of a "problem" as the current links to Exodus.
I don't expect that a small ISP like ourselves could go to any of the major
ISPs and expect to peer for free, but in this case it looks like BBN gets
at least as much benefit as Exodus of the current arrangement.
Perhaps BBN management just passed a course in Tearing up the Internet
for fun and profit.
More likely they think they have Exodus/etc backed into a corner with no
option but to pay BBN for transit.
John Tamplin Traveller Information Services
jat@Traveller.COM 2104 West Ferry Way
256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 Huntsville, AL 35801
> Perhaps BBN management just passed a course in Tearing up the Internet
> for fun and profit.
Right in one, Jon.
More likely they think they have Exodus/etc backed into a corner with no
option but to pay BBN for transit.
In which case, "deluded" is a good choice of adjectives.
Cheers,
-- jra
On the macro, non-technical side of things...this move also degrades the
very cooperative nature of the Internet (which is getting less cooperative
by the day).
It used to be "we're all one big family...c'mon in!" but now it's "you must
not only pay your own way, but pay part of our way as well or you can't
come in!". Pay per play, all the way. Wanna be on the Internet? Bring
your Platinum card.
The next step will be "you must pay a hefty price for every packet
transitting our pipes", directing transitting (packets only going through
specified routes) and strong-arm tactics on the smaller players to sign up
with one specific network. Then you'll see regulation akin to what telcos
have, with the concommitant expense.
Sorry, Pandora...the box is open and Woe is on the loose.
Wabbit season!..duck season!..wabbit season!..duck season!..SPAMMER SEASON!
Dean Robb
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]
There is a customer perception, dating from the earliest days of the
Internet that when you connect to the Internet, you will be able to reach
all sites that are up, everywhere. That this is still mostly true is a
tribute to the hard work of a lot people on this list, and elsewhere. So
far, the cases for which this is not true are small in both number and
relative importance.
If this perception breaks down, watch out. Theodore Vail was allowed to
create the regulated monopoly AT&T in the early part of this century on the
promise of Universal Service, which meant not only that everyone had a
telephone, but that *all* telephones could call *all* other telephones -
one big, happy, PSTN.
The Internet presents this kind of universality today without the
regulation, but don't doubt for a second that if the ISPs (of whatever
size) begin destructive pissing matches of the form "I'm bigger than you,
pay me or we disconnect" that the FCC will be pressured to regulate the
ISPs in such a way to guarantee the universal connectivity aspect of the
Internet.
Your customers will demand it.
Erik <fair@clock.org>
"Erik E. Fair" <fair@clock.org> writes:
The Internet presents this kind of universality today without the
regulation, but don't doubt for a second that if the ISPs (of whatever
size) begin destructive pissing matches of the form "I'm bigger than you,
pay me or we disconnect" that the FCC will be pressured to regulate the
ISPs in such a way to guarantee the universal connectivity aspect of the
Internet.
It would be sad were it to go that way, but a universal connectivity
system in the US would go a long way to help creating a scalable
international peering/settlement system (which the FCC is not in a
position to regulate.) Currently, it is depressing to watch all the US
domestic peering haggling going on, and wonder how in the hell those
of us paying for big pipes across big oceans are going to come up with
reasonable and scalable cost models to allow those pipes to grow.
That the Internet presents universality at the moment, from an
international perspective, works only because the US (or rather, a few
US major players) is still acting as a global NAP, and most outside of
the US are so far willing to pay the full cost of connectivity to the US.
I suspect a day is comming where instead of BBN, it will be someone like
NTT (the big Japanese telco) saying "pay for connecting to us, or we will
cut off your access to Japanese porn from our customer sites." Or, they
may say to US based advertizers, "Pay us for what you use on this pipe
across the Pacific, or we will block your access to Japanese customers."
-jem
John Milburn jem@bora.net
Director - BoraNet jem@xpat.com
EC Internet Division Tel +82 2-220-7035
Dacom Corporation, Seoul, Korea Fax +82 2-220-0751