I will not go into a point by point rebuttal here, even though I
generally do not subscribe to your arguments. I am not planning on
"winning" here, I just want to get the issues on the table and evaluate
the solution space. Just let me ask you, as a customer who fairly
frequently experiences 10% packet loss between major Internet locations
across major service providers (no mom and pop shops in the middle or
at the end points), how would you suggest I deal with that? My
complaints to the involved service providers have typically gotten
unanswered by the national service provider, and saying "we can't do
anything about it except letting our national service provider know" by
my regional service provider. There is no quality control at the
inter-ISP level. I want to see that fixed. I don't care how, I do know
that the current situation is intolerable. I believe that this is prime
NANOG (and IEPG) business. NSF and the feds are out, with the NSFNET
backbone dismantling, and the kitchen you asked for to cook (ahem!) in
is all yours to get your tailfeathers burned in all by yourself.
I will not go into a point by point rebuttal here, even though I
generally do not subscribe to your arguments. I am not planning on
"winning" here, I just want to get the issues on the table and evaluate
the solution space. Just let me ask you, as a customer who fairly
frequently experiences 10% packet loss between major Internet locations
across major service providers (no mom and pop shops in the middle or
at the end points), how would you suggest I deal with that?
Uh... Ignore it?
10% packet loss is quite within the normal range of parameters for a
packet switching network such as the Internet. If you want 0% packet loss,
you can lease your own private point-to-point lines.
my regional service provider. There is no quality control at the
inter-ISP level. I want to see that fixed.
But nothing is broken. There is no inter-ISP level. ISP's buy access to
the global network from and NSP and resell those access rights to you.
Instead of millions of inter-ISP relationships, there is only one (or a
few for multi-homed ISP's) relationship to negotiate and to manage.
I don't care how, I do know
that the current situation is intolerable.
Well why didn't you say so in the first place! We thought you *DID* care
how. Since you don't care how the problem is solved you will be happy to
know that SPRINT and MCI et al. will be pleased to provide you with the
performance guarantees that you require. Just get out your checkbook and
call them on Monday morning. Make sure you tell them that price is no object.
I believe that this is prime
NANOG (and IEPG) business. NSF and the feds are out, with the NSFNET
backbone dismantling,
The NSF backbone is long gone (5 months or so), and the national
backbones (note plural) at the core of the Internet are fast evolving
into international webworks of fibre. As the networks grow and the
infrastructure is deployed there are lots of pains. Live with them. In 10
years it will be over. Think of it like putting up with construction in
your house and mud where the front yard should be. Once the construction
is finished you will soon forget about it as you enjoy your new home.
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
The current method should probably be: locate where the packet loss
occurs, forward it to your provider, your provider forwards it to his,
and so on.
Yes, there is no formal mechanism to my knowledge, but should we really
make one?
If we start to formalize then we have later to formalize the meetpoint
relationships (who is responsible for packet loss on a meetpoint network?).
A better point of pressure: chose a provider with shorter internal paths.
On the Internet anyone can kick the tires of any network by sending
probing data accross it. You get latency, hop count, and throughput of
the smallest link in your path.
The job to find this out is a consultant's job. The consultant knows
about the Internet topology, and how to quickly find out if a provider
will be ok for the wanted connectivity, or not.
Scopes of connectivity can be global reachability (trading off maybe
hopcounts and comparing on offered routes and latency), short paths (for
virtual private networks or national connectivity), points of presence in
your business locations.
If everyone would chose, then the now big networks, that offer an
impressive display of capital investment (called excessive hopcount by
some people with negative attitude 
), will probably redisign their
routing (or why do some connections backtrack via both coasts and then to
the next metropole 200 miles away?).
I would say, that market pressure is the best regulatory agent: pinches
directly into the providers pocketbook. I accept this and design for
customers, and have customer needs and quality issues in mind when the
network grows (which it does currently tremendously).
Instead of organizational reglementation, I would put the current path of
Internet routing forward: with current tools it is possible to include
routing decisions of networks around a provider in that providers routing
topology. It is just a matter of time to implement it.
Mike