Creating a consortium [akin to the NAP model] of small ISP's could
easily resolve this problem, if all address space allocated to each
ISP was contiguous and could be aggregated to a larger prefix.
This has been suggested on numerous occasions.
- paul
It's not only been suggested, but I believe it's been somewhat
implemented. 
Back in September '94, Chris Alan (Electriciti) and a few
others came up with an idea called PCH -- Packet Clearing House.
The primary concept was, as you suggested, connect a bunch of small ISPs
together using shared resources and address space and peer with the "big
boyz." Unfortunately I haven't been involved with it lately, so hopefully
someone that has can share if it was successful or not.
-jh-
[How to get a block]
Creating a consortium [akin to the NAP model] of small ISP's could
easily resolve this problem, if all address space allocated to each
ISP was contiguous and could be aggregated to a larger prefix.
But, this would require working with your direct competition in your
local geographic area.
Ain't gonna happen.
No way, No How.
The whole point of getting the bigger address space is to be better than
your competition (multi-homed, etc etc.)
(not that I don't *WANT* it to happen, it just isn't going to.)
-abc
\ Alan B. Clegg
Just because I can \ Internet Staff
does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc.
\ <http://www.gateway.com/>
The whole point of getting the bigger address space is to be better than
your competition (multi-homed, etc etc.)
Oh, baloney.
The point of a larger address space is ease of deployment. The current thinking is, "We don't want it to be easier if it wastes numbers. Work a little harder."
Besides, if you think for one minute that the customers of most ISPs give a hoot about larger address space, or that being multi-homed will GUARANTEE a dialup customer will go to them, then you'd be interested to hear about my real estate ventures...
Carl
>The whole point of getting the bigger address space is to be better than
>your competition (multi-homed, etc etc.)
The point of a larger address space is ease of deployment. The current
thinking is, "We don't want it to be easier if it wastes numbers. Work a
little harder."
How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?
"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to
cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves
out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight
between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely.
Besides, if you think for one minute that the customers of most ISPs
give a hoot about larger address space, or that being multi-homed will
GUARANTEE a dialup customer will go to them, then you'd be interested to
hear about my real estate ventures...
I have no interest in your real estate, but I *KNOW* that customers of
most, if not all ISPs care about the reliability of their network, ergo,
the connectivity that their ISP has to its neighbors and that IS a
selling point.
If your sales people (for all of you small ISPs out there that don't have
connections to 3+ NAPs) aren't using the "We are connected at TWO points
where [insert rival network name here]'s network is only connected to
ONE!" pitch, you have the wrong sales people.
BTW, I'm not talking about dialup clients. I would not do a dialup ISP
for all the AOL/GNN customers in the world. Now, talk ISDN & T1, I
might.. just maybe... NAH...
-abc
PS: can you format your text for 80 columns next time so that I don't have
to do it in my reply?
PPS: can you explain your train of thought on 'larger address spaces are
easier to deploy' so that I can attempt to follow it?
\ Alan B. Clegg
Just because I can \ Internet Staff
does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc.
\ <http://www.gateway.com/>
Wrong. It already is happening in some regions. You won't see any direct
competition in the Internet business for at least two more years unless
you see monsters under your bed and the CIA are listening in on your
brain.
The Internet market is miniscule. It is growing fast. It will continue to
grow fast. No one company can hope to grow fast enough to dominate in any
particular city. That's why you don't have to work with your local
competition, you just have to work with your other local ISP's in
building your local Internet infrastructure and growing your local
Internet market..
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
I know that and you know that, but the people that are forming the small
startup ISPs that are NOT ON THIS LIST (and don't even know about this
list) don't know that, and don't care.
As I have stated in other mail, I'm just playing devil's advocate and
looking at the position of smaller ISPs that see the 'big boys' taking
away all the users.
I would be happy to get every new ISP in a region to work together to make
a better world for us all, but too many of them are worried more about the
$$$ bottom line than the 'good of the net', and the way they build their
$$$ bottom line is to get the most clients while the ISP across the street
goes belly up.
I guess you could push the idea that once you manage to kill the fellow
across the street's business, you get all that address space to yourself,
but I still don't think that REAL cooperation in the small ISP marketplace
is a reality.
Just my opinions on human & business nature.
(they may change if you give me a good reason)
I really _DO_ want the net to work, as it is my lifeblood, I just don't
see this as realistic in the current scheme of things.
-abc
\ Alan B. Clegg
Just because I can \ Internet Staff
does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc.
\ <http://www.gateway.com/>
How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?
Y'know, I almost answered this, and decided against it. After reading this whole note, I realized it wasn't conversation, it was argument, and I almost came underdressed.
"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
not my argument.
Your argument was that:
>The whole point of getting the bigger address space is to be better than
>your competition (multi-homed, etc etc.)
And I'm telling you with fairly solid certainty that the point of address space of any kind has NOTHING to do with position on the totem pole or being "better than your competition." Based on your last note, we should wantonly acquire larger blocks and one-up GenericISP because doing so is an available weapon prescribed by the IANA.
Ever seen a nasty catfight between small local ISPs?
Do you realize who you're talking to?
The problem is the users, not the ISPs. Any user worth two cents of online time can pick the liars out of the mix and go to the superior provider. We don't have many "low-end" AOL types, virtual domain wanna-be-in-business-on-the-Internet yahoos because the morons across town do a better job of downright LYING to them. Try and tell one of those clowns you're multi-homed, or have Cisco 7000s over 2501s, tell them you're connected to NAPs, not the larger provider on the other end of town, and tell them you've been doing IP for almost 10 years. They don't know the difference, and they don't care. They see the schmooze, and they hear the speel, and they see the price is lower. Y'know what? They buy it. Fine. I'm not in this business to keep other people from making money. I wish the opposite were true too.
I don't hold my competitors nearly as responsible for this as I used to. The fact is, the lusers can't even appreciate the argument. There are just too many customers and too many greedy ISPs with sights set on getting money from all of them.
Can you imagine what this world would look like if there were ANY other industry with as many clueless consumers as clueless vendors? I can just see the automobile market now, or the airline industry. Hell, a restaurant.
"Oh, can you tell me about your food, please? Filet mignon? Well, the place that sells food over there has some for a tiny fraction of your price. No, they call theirs a Big Mac. Your beef is range-bred and USDA Grade A? No, theirs is farm-grown, frozen; I don't know for how long. Well, I can buy fifty of their Big Macs and resell them, but by the time I get just two of yours sold they'll go rotten and be no better than theirs. Seems theirs has a longer halflife."
Or health care:
"Yes, I'd like your prices on medical attention, please."
"Sure, how can I help you?"
"I require medical attention. The place across town offers it for X"
"Oh, we're MUCH cheaper than that. Our overhead is VERY low, and we pass on the savings to you."
"Well, I think I'm going to need to make a decision immediately."
"I can have our complete line of medical facilities ready to deploy in fifteen seconds."
"Well, they said they were AMA rated, had something called "doctors" on staff, and said they accepted all kinds of insurance."
"That's just marketing. You're here now, we're ready now, we can take care of you now and for a lot cheaper. Trust me: those people can't give as good service as we can because they're too big for their own good."
"Well, they said they had an operating room, "surgeons," and something called an intensive care unit. What do you have?"
"We have these brand new Zee first aid kits! And, we have TEN of them!"
<patient drops dead of the heart attack that started before he even walked in>
It doesn't stop there. We have twenty-station hands-on labs in two counties and have a pretty extensive set of courses Internet and non-'Net related. Our turnout is about even with the guys with the weekly free seminars.
And people wonder why the dropouts have such a bad taste in their mouth and decry the Internet's success.
I have no interest in your real estate, but I *KNOW* that customers of
most, if not all ISPs care about the reliability of their network, ergo,
the connectivity that their ISP has to its neighbors and that IS a
selling point.
Please rephrase this wordy sentence using the English Language.
If your sales people (for all of you small ISPs out there that don't have
connections to 3+ NAPs) aren't using the "We are connected at TWO points
where [insert rival network name here]'s network is only connected to
ONE!" pitch, you have the wrong sales people.
Then thank God you have them all.
PS: can you format your text for 80 columns next time so that I don't have
to do it in my reply?
It is. BTW, you're set to 60
While we're on the topic, why did you CC me if I'm on the list? Do you think so highly of your words that you feel I need two copies? Or three? Before you know it, I'll be in the CC line of every replicated reply. STOP CCing ME IF I'M ON THE LIST!
Carl
> The Internet market is miniscule. It is growing fast. It will continue to
> grow fast. No one company can hope to grow fast enough to dominate in any
> particular city. That's why you don't have to work with your local
> competition, you just have to work with your other local ISP's in
> building your local Internet infrastructure and growing your local
> Internet market..I know that and you know that, but the people that are forming the small
startup ISPs that are NOT ON THIS LIST (and don't even know about this
list) don't know that, and don't care.
Lucky for you then! You can be the one in your area to start up a
regional provider to service small ISP's and get away from the headaches
of having to service dialup customers yourself. The ISP's will end up
getting allocated addresses from your larger block and thus they will end
up co-operating even though they don't know it. You can multihome your
own network to 3 of the big NSP's, provide POP's in two different areas
of the city so that small ISP's can connect to both your POP's and avoid
the "backhoe" syndrome, and you can make a good living too.
As I have stated in other mail, I'm just playing devil's advocate and
looking at the position of smaller ISPs that see the 'big boys' taking
away all the users.
Now that you are starting an aggregating business, it is in your personal
financial interest to explain to these smaller ISP's how the market is
growing and there will be plenty of users for them. Help them grow their
businesses because it helps you grow yours. Teach them how to market
based upon service and not upon penis size (oops, I meant # of T1's).
I would be happy to get every new ISP in a region to work together to make
a better world for us all, but too many of them are worried more about the
$$$ bottom line than the 'good of the net', and the way they build their
$$$ bottom line is to get the most clients while the ISP across the street
goes belly up.
The only problem with this scenario is that no matter what the
moneygrubbing ISP does, it will *NOT* make the guy across the street go
belly up. I have come across many situations where ISP's have gone
belly-up over the past two years and it was always due to mismanagement
and/or inability to provide a quality service. In Seattle, Atlanta,
Toronto and my hoemtown in Vernon, BC, Canada it was always the same story.
I guess you could push the idea that once you manage to kill the fellow
across the street's business, you get all that address space to yourself,
but I still don't think that REAL cooperation in the small ISP marketplace
is a reality.
Well, it *IS* a reality in many cities already.
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
> The Internet market is miniscule. It is growing fast. It will continue to
> grow fast. No one company can hope to grow fast enough to dominate in any
> particular city. That's why you don't have to work with your local
> competition, you just have to work with your other local ISP's in
> building your local Internet infrastructure and growing your local
> Internet market..I know that and you know that, but the people that are forming the small
startup ISPs that are NOT ON THIS LIST (and don't even know about this
list) don't know that, and don't care.As I have stated in other mail, I'm just playing devil's advocate and
looking at the position of smaller ISPs that see the 'big boys' taking
away all the users.
I can positively confirm that the big ones do not take away 'all users':
most companies are really fed up to be 5 to 12 hops away from meetpoints,
limping over legacy equipment and routing protocols like is-is, and being
part of a network that does not offer unlimited Internet access due to
their provider's routing policies.
There are tries by some 'big ones' to bend the fate to their favour by
not peering, or by using the liberal nature of Internet development to
put in little nudges that they believe works into their favor.
I am sometimes ranting against that, but in reality: the doomed ones stay
doomed, since they cannot replace all their equipment. They can reflect
traffic to other's ports to no avail, whatever.
A startup has the chance to build a nice network from scratch, which up
to date equipment, and with up to date equipment replacement and
migration schedules in a managed growth environment.
In reality: I guess we are just fine.
The market: that's right too: there is room for everyone. We recently
upgraded POPs for dial , the created void was filled immediately. On the
Internet are worldwide about what, 50 million users (not hosts, users).
There are alone in the U.S. over 200 million people, Europe is about 400
million. Most are younger (see demographic typical age pyramids), eager
to explore the new technology. There's room for everyone.
What will win in the end is quality and reliability of service. The costs
charged are differing incrementally: everyone has the same per port costs
when using adequate equipment in dial and dedicated access operations.
I would say the big differentiator are the people that do the networks.
This is not about router config, this is about the view and the overall
design. Anybody can learn router configuration, go to cisco training and
whatever. Most don't do good networks, it's that simple.
Also, the qualification of startups is most of the time nil zip nada
zero. Seeing that there is potential for enormous profitability, most
believe in putting up modems in basements all over the place is enough.
AS I see it: cooperation and mutual respect brought the Internet to where
it is now. Only we must now watch more than ever that some destructive or
too shortsighted minds don't destroy the freedom we all have.
.... that's why I am ranting from time to time heavily, when I see stuff
sneaking in that could cause trouble.
.... preaching to the choir ....
Mike
Yes, so why not take you address space from you upstreem provider and
yes, when you need to change it. We started with 1 /24 then, /23 then
/19, all from Sprintlink. We then added a MCI connection and the Internic
gave us a /18, then we got connected to a NAP, the NIC gave us one more
/18. Yes, we had to renumber off the /24, /23, and are still working on
the /19.
The point is that the NIC has no idea how long you will be in business,
or if you need the space at all. I am provding access to right now 10
ISP, that will be gone in a year, and have watch that many die so far.
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Your Gateway to the World!