On Thu, March 29, 2007 14:51, jamie baddeley wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:14 +1000, Alastair Johnson
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)
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
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?
Are you going
to pay for my long haul circuits to Palmy?
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
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...
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" (a
layer 3 service)?
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...
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.
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
After all, 3 is the magic number. Ho ho. So we're
back at the point where
one of those entities recognises that again. Let's hope that we can all
be sensible. 3-4 years is a while to wait, but I've seen worse.
i prefer the number 'i' - it seems much more magical than '3'...but that
is just me
> Otherwise you're significantly reducing the
benefit of it before you
> even start.
for which destinations?
from which sources?
for what costs?
> What 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).
> What if I don't want to haul Content Provider
C's traffic from Palmy to
> my subscribers in Auckland because it's 50+Mbps?
> Third option: regional based peering. My POP in PMR peers at the PNIX
> and only originates local prefixes.
see above re "local"
my rambling two-cents (pick a currency)
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
- Douglas Adams -