links on the blink (fwd)

[Hans-Werner_Braun2]

I have heard this argument very many times (and used it myself, and
sure understand it at a technical level). It is a very network-centric
argument serving a specific service provider. As a customer I don't
buy it. You guys need to take a customer centric approach and make the
customers happy. You sell yourselves and get money as services providers
for the *Internet* not your *local environment*. If you only sell
XYZnet services, not problem, but please then do not advertise you
provide Internet services just because you are marginally connected to
the rest of the world with no clue about how to make the NANOG and
global system work.

In the end this will be a market driven by customers, not service
providers. Customers will make the rules and will determine whether a
service is good or lousy. Look for other examples. If my power outlets
would regularly drop to 50 volts (or zero) I would get quite irritated.
"Power" is sold on the open market between service providers. I would
not accept an argument from a local service provider that my power is
always dropping because some service provider 2,000 miles away is
screwing up. I would consider that to be their problem to watch out for
such things and to coordinate it right. Same with phones. I don't care
what region you are in, but if I would call you, above the 99th
percentile, as long as you are close to your phone and pick up, my call
will get through and work without significant service degradations
*despite* the fact that there are at least three service prodivers
(local, long distance, local) involved. Why? Because power and phone
companies have their shit together on that stuff, and coordinate and
cooperate because they do understand they are all in the same boat. Of
course, obviously it is not a fairly new and anarchic environment
there, but has grown quite well into coordination. Are you guys up to
it, or would you need regulation do it for you? Y'know, life can be
easier if your parents tell you what to do, if you cannot get your act
together yourself. Less stress, too. Less flexibility as well, perhaps,
but methinks we have to choose some optimization function here, and buy
off on the cost.

In the end, this is not a sandbox for having a good time. People today
*depend* on their network connection, and that it works is importenat
to them. You *have* to go beyond just thinking locally.

[Gordon_Cook2]

Hans Werner - presumably frustrated about the quality of his internet
service writes:

  Are you guys up to it, or would you need regulation do it for
  you? Y'know, life can be easier if your parents tell you what
  to do, if you cannot get your act together yourself. Less stress, too.
  Less flexibility as well, perhaps, but methinks we have to choose some
  optimization function here, and buy off on the cost.

  In the end, this is not a sandbox for having a good time.
  People today *depend* on their network connection, and that it works
  is important to them. You *have* to go beyond just thinking locally.

Very relevant questions. Let me try to nudge the discussion into a
slightly different direction. When people started talking to me earlier
in the summer about internet business models, these issues were the
number one argument.

The chain of reasoning went something like: you can't have a mature
internet business until you have guaranteed quality of service metrics.
You can't have guaranteed quality of service metrics until you have
settlements. It seems to me that Hans Werner's complaint above fits
squarely into this mold of thought. If I am wrong I am sure he'll tell me.

Could we talk a bit about where these conclusions may lead us?

Settlements, as I understand them, might be traffic based or route
based. If I use more of someone else's resources than he uses of mine, I
owe him a payment. Perhaps the payment might be for gigabytes delivered
or routes advertised. The payment process then would cascade from the
largest down to the smallest providers as those lower in the food chain
extracted money from those beneath them to pay the demands of those above
them.

The outcome of such a process would be significant. Traffic based
settlemnts would add substantial accounting costs to doing business.
Route charging I'd guess would add less. Again however would not the
billing components of this play into the hands of the RBOCS and five
largest IXCs who have the mainframes and software systems to handle it
most easily?

But if the big boys started it, how far would it or could it go before
shattering the internet? I predict on the basis of what regional ISPs
who have more dial up than leased line accounts tell me that they would
disconnect from the big boys rather than accept the strangle hold of
settlements. The result - viola - a fractured, balkanized internet.

How are you going to guarantee the standards of service? PUC
certification in each state? Just what the RBOCs would love. Everyone
has to open a 7 by 24 NOC or you can't be in the business? Cisco 7000
routers become minimum gear? I know. Everyone has to meet standards set
by the CIX in order to play. Seriously though - how are you going to do
it? What will the rules be and how will they be made?

Lets assume that this were done in the most benign possible way. The
only way smaller isps could stay in business would be to pass the
increased costs on to their customers. And then your friendly South
dakota Internet service, would be like the nationals - $20 a month for 15
hours and $2 and hour for each additional hour. Not to mention the fact
that the costs of entry would be catapulted so high as to exclude new
start ups lacking sufficient outside financing. As Compu$erve remarked
in July, the cost model of $20 a month for unlimited service is a
suicidal one for this industry. Yeah undoubtedly if you have the
overhead costs of an Hr Block or RBOC to satisfy.

Let me frame the question starkly. To get the reliability that Hans
Werner wants to what extent must we consolidate the industry and raise
prices? Killing in the process what makes the internet a magnet of
attraction for some millions of users? **OR** is there any alternative
of letting a few build an inustrial strength network for those who demand
it, an allowing a less costly more fault tolerant network to survive? If
so how might this be done? Comments from policy makers for the big five
would be welcome.

[Mike6]

I have heard this argument very many times (and used it myself, and
sure understand it at a technical level). It is a very network-centric
argument serving a specific service provider. As a customer I don't
buy it. You guys need to take a customer centric approach and make the
customers happy. You sell yourselves and get money as services providers
for the *Internet* not your *local environment*. If you only sell

no, we sell internet access. Your argument would require carmakers to
provide for sufficiently scenic driving environment

XYZnet services, not problem, but please then do not advertise you
provide Internet services just because you are marginally connected to

we provide internet access services. Same with the phone: nobody
guarantees you that you get through to china, isn't it?

the rest of the world with no clue about how to make the NANOG and
global system work.

In the end this will be a market driven by customers, not service
providers. Customers will make the rules and will determine whether a
service is good or lousy. Look for other examples. If my power outlets
would regularly drop to 50 volts (or zero) I would get quite irritated.

this is not a good comparison: we talk reachability here, analogy would
be phone networks.
Power: there is no geographical difference: 110Volts from Kansas look
exactly the same as 110 Volts from Wisconsin.

"Power" is sold on the open market between service providers. I would

not accept an argument from a local service provider that my power is
always dropping because some service provider 2,000 miles away is
screwing up. I would consider that to be their problem to watch out for

the service agreement here is not to reach that location, but to have
power. and, btw: you do not get compensated for outages at all: if I must
throwh away my freezer contents, they do not pay me for it. That's
exactly like Internet access: if you cannot reach MIT because their link
is down, we won't pay you your money back, and won't come up for any
damages because you could not deliver a document or else.

such things and to coordinate it right. Same with phones. I don't care
what region you are in, but if I would call you, above the 99th
percentile, as long as you are close to your phone and pick up, my call
will get through and work without significant service degradations
*despite* the fact that there are at least three service prodivers

wrong: this week I triet to reach Chicago several times and got "sorry,
your call cannot be completed at this time ...... try later". Can I now
go to the phone company and say: "I did not reach my business partner to
stop a deal and lost money, compensate me?".. I won't even try.

(local, long distance, local) involved. Why? Because power and phone
companies have their shit together on that stuff, and coordinate and

two weeks ago one of these nice transformers on the poles exploded about
1.5 miles from here, sending a loud boom, and a fantastic power surge
that burnt out a light bulb (my surge protector held). Don't even ask
them to pay your stereo if it fries in such an incident.

cooperate because they do understand they are all in the same boat. Of
course, obviously it is not a fairly new and anarchic environment
there, but has grown quite well into coordination. Are you guys up to
it, or would you need regulation do it for you? Y'know, life can be

Regulation would make it better:I could sit back and point to a regulation.

easier if your parents tell you what to do, if you cannot get your act
together yourself. Less stress, too. Less flexibility as well, perhaps,

                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

see two lines above re regulations

but methinks we have to choose some optimization function here, and buy
off on the cost.

In the end, this is not a sandbox for having a good time. People today

HOwever, I don't hate my job that much...

*depend* on their network connection, and that it works is importenat
to them. You *have* to go beyond just thinking locally.

We do: we offer redundant dual homing and configure even your ospf or BGP
for you. Even if you chose a different provider.