On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 11:13 +1200, joshua sahala wrote:
On Thu, March 29, 2007 14:51, jamie baddeley wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:14 +1000, Alastair
Okay, but if you're only
interconnecting/exchanging at your local IX then
suddenly this is not as useful as it sounded. Telecom's primary center
of operations is indisputably Auckland. Does that mean that, e.g.
Trademe, cannot reach TNZ across an IX?
Or do we come back to region-isation again?
The real issue is to get some consensus on how one defines
regional/local. A sensible starting point is linking that decision to
where the /32's within the networks that are peered are.
i'm not sure that i agree that tracking $large_number /32s is sensible
(and i'm pretty sure you aren't talking about ipv6)
Not necessarily talking about tracking /32's - more talking about an
approach which recognises where the punters are rather than something
that reflects architecture and therefore where the netblocks aggregate
to. For example one ISP has a number of punters in Palmerston North
which hub off a Chch RAN. If you're not cogniscient of where the punters
are local peering could mean PN punters are announced in Chch instead of
PN. Which makes a mockery of the idea.
Linking it to geography strictly is a great leap
*backwards* towards LCA
concepts in my view.
this statement contradicts what you said about tracking /32s - a /32 is
tied to a location, either statically or dynamically.
i agree that LCA is a step in the wrong direction
Linking it to concentrations of competitive
networks might be sensible.
after all they tend to be where the people are.
The thing to bear in mind that the bigger the metro is the more
expensive it gets and the more it starts to look like national transit.
metro != national
Yes. My tongue was in my cheek then.
no city/metro within new zealand is that large...not even the auckland
sprawl. london, new york, etc. have much larger populations and much
larger areas...but they still are just cities.
"Yeah, my metro is 1000KM's long, and
I'm going to charge you $160 per meg
to connect with it" - sound familiar?
regardless of how big a network is (or tries to be), is largely
irrelevant. is that network worth $money to you? if it can be had via
another path for $less_money then why bother?
The point of that comment is the lack of ability to distinguish between
national and local/metro.
> Are you going to pay for my long haul circuits to
Is your primary centre of operations in Palmy? No? Why would you peer
in Palmy, then?
Because you're regulating peering. If we must peer, then
needs to peer either everywhere (expensive), or at one IX (expensive for
Maybe, but this might be based on the presumption that there's only two
paradigms. Peering, and International. That's clearly wrong. Just like
the view that there's only National and International. That's equally
wrong. The real deal is there's 3 zones. Local, National, and
International. One day there might be regional as well.
what is local? this sounds a little like LCA again...
france telecom defines "local peering" as:
A local peering refers to interconnections contracted on a
specific country with internet route from this country only.
depending upon whom you ask, you will likely get different definitions for
"local" and "regional"..."national" and
"international" are probably the
only terms that will yield a consistent definition
I'm asking NZNOG. France Telecom would say that in the context you
describe which is international. Europe is bound to have quite a
different perspective due to the landlocked nature of many of the
countries. Unlike NZ.
The point is that the price is vaguely linked to
the cost of providing
the infrastructure to cover the area in question. Of course market forces
will influence that based on the existence of competition. And
competition is related to the relative ease of providing the
infrastructure to cover the area in question in the first place.
very very vaguely related. i haven't seen much 'cost + margin' pricing
since coming to this country...
Correlating cost against market price assists you in the context of
assessing price-gouging/monopoly behaviours.
What's really at stake here is the industry
agreeing to accept that 3
high level grades of (more than 100 metres) transport (in terms of reach)
is a valid concept. Maybe more if we can be sensible and it doesn't
confuse the market.
are you talking about "transport" (a layer 2 service) or "transit"
layer 3 service)?
Either. I am sure that parties will develop products that are
characterised as one or the other.
how much does it really cost to haul one byte of data between any two
points within new zealand? cost + margin
if your network doesn't reach one (or both) of those end points, then you
have two choices, pay someone else to reach them for you, or build your
network to reach them.
We used to have 3 grades. Then 2 entities decided
there were 2 grades in
2004. Then some got confused that there was only 1 grade. Others got
confused between local and national (or couldn't/wouldn't tell the
difference). But we mostly understood that were there still 3 grades.
Local. National. International.
"local"? "national"? "international"?
sounds like "3 grades" of phone charging...
Well it's how it was here prior to 2004. And it seemed to work.
if you want to purchase 100mbps of ip transit in billings, montana it is
probably going to cost you a bit more per-megabit than 100mbps in tampa,
florida...but there is no differentiation in pricing made between a
destination in kansas or a destination in south africa.
I suspect that's related to the retail side rather than the wholesale
chances are that even if the destination is on different provider in
billings, montana, it will be hauled to chicago and back (~4100km
round-trip) (longer than invercargill to auckland and back - roughly
Personally I think it's more fruitful for us to work out what works for
us rather than trying to compare to markets that have a significantly
different dynamic and economic equation. The US is nationally
significantly larger, and pays significantly less to reach the world.
happens if my POPs are islands and not connected to my
> (think internap PNAPs) I'm only going to originate local prefixes anyway.
each pnap was treated as a separate network: each had a unique ASN
(sometimes several), and they tried to purchase transit from the same
providers are each pnap, but it varied a bit. if you were an internap
customer in more than one location with no internal backbone, you had to
play tricks (as-override or similar) or announce inconsistent tables like
the last time i was an internap customer, the transit was "cheap" and the
quality was variable. ymmv
fyi - internap has a backbone now, and i think most (maybe all) of the
pnaps are tied together (or will be).
Sounds familiar. I'd suggest that that evolutionary path is one that is
also tread here.