nanog mailing list archives
BBN/GTEI
From: Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:17:04 -0500
Oops, intended for Nanog as well....
--- Begin Message --- From: Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:16:12 -0500
I'll play Dave... ====================================================== Don't take this too seriously... Just hypothesizing... ====================================================== Financial Model for Internet: Origin fee, Termination fee, then "mileage bands" costing. Origin Fee to Origin ISP, (Dial up ISP's make money on this...) Termination Fee to terminating ISP, (Hosters with lots of hosts make $$ on this) mileage fee = ds0 miles/s consumed .... 128K *2 miles * 1 second = 4 ds0/S miles.... ('Bone's make their money on this) (All fee's *paid by* originator of syn..) [ There is a joke in that..... ;) ] ============================================================== ***As the originator of syn, *actively requested* content.*** ============================================================== (No passive bill generation for *me*, thank you..) Mileage fee paid to owners of circuit(s) in path based on DS0 Mile/Seconds Example, [ignore numbers, just BS'n it for now....] BBN customers clicks on "www.hostsight.com" hosted at Exodus. (2cents BBN *if* completed) BBN opens a path to exodus... 100 ds0 miles across BBN at 64K, 800DS0 miles to Verio, 100 Miles to Exodus. And terminates to Exodus server... (Origin of ACK) (2 cents Exodus) Transmission consumes 64k , transmitted over 1 second. Total Mileage/Seconds Consumed = 1000 Ds0 M/S 1 cent BBN, 8 cents Verio, 1 cent Exodus. Collection falls on BBN, dispersal as follows: BBN collects from customer, Pays Self (Original SYN, Mileage) , Pays Verio (Remaining Mileage+ACK). Verio Pays self (Mileage - [Exodus Mileage + ACK]), Verio Pays Exodus (Mileage + ACK). Or, maybe BBN Collects: Pays Verio, and Exodus... End of transaction: BBN = 3 cents Verio = 8 cents Exodus = 3 Cents. So, Why have lots of dialup ? Origin Fee's. So, Why have lots of Hosts ? Termination Fee's So, Why have lots of Circuit ? Mileage fee's. Slow Host, Slow Path ? Reduced transmission speed, less DS0/Seconds per mile. Same cost, longer time. Less Acks per second. Less users serviced...... Fast Host, Fast Net More DS0/Seconds Per Second. Same cost, less time. More Ack's per second. More users serviced. Dialup's quit getting *all* the money from users who consume someone *elses* circuits.... Hosters have motivation to host. (Lots of ACK's) 'Bones quit trying to figure a way to make hosters, and dialups, pay for bandwidth consumed in *any* direction... (X)SP's with lots of all the above, make money on *all* the above. BEGIN RANT { I see a lot of 'Bone's [I won't mention big names] who did designs based on the original 9:1 (7:1,etc) aggregation ratio's [remember "can't *really* fill a T days" ?, Erlangs, this was *NOT*] (This all changed when "Slow Start" started making more effective use of the bandwidth, buffers deepened, edges increased in capacity.. 14.4 vs 52k vs ISDN, and "Continental Latency" dropped from typical 250ms to typical 80ms) who are now being creamed with congestion and are trying to declare themselves *NOT* part of the internet, and want money to even PEER with your network, ..... trying to generate enough revenue to pay for their network.... (As they are only charging enough to make money on the original 9:1 model) Rather than raising their prices so they can afford enough network to actually *service* their customers, (IE get them *to* and *from* the internet) and losing market share, they figure they have enough market share to make us pay for their own networks shortcomings.... (the 9:1 Model) IE: Too many customers, not enough bandwidth, nor margin, to fix it.. With this change "Lots of Circuit = Lots of DS0 Mileage Miles...." It might motivate more backbone, instead of more aggregation... } Out flow != In flow ? Doesn't matter. Mileage DS0 seconds determined by adding both IN and OUT END-TO-END *completed* flows together and divide by 2. 127K In 1 second, 1K out over 1 second = 64K seconds. Or, 1 DS0 second. (Lost traffic ? Not end to end... Proof ? Thoughts ?) Now, I am *not* recommending this... This is just a parallel to the telco fabric pricing. (An already proven model) But, anything you do with respect to this eliminates the "Surf all you can" attitude, and I am not sure that would facilitate the internet acceptance/utilization/wandering/discovery..... that we are all trying to encourage.... Changes for multicast ???? (Leaf Join initiation fee, split by origin and termination, plus mileage bands? even works well for aggregation, as multiple users can consume same "Mileage Band" flow) Thoughts ? Richard PS: 800 Service = Host Payed Pathway Dave Rand wrote:[In the message entitled "Re: BBN/GTEI" on Aug 21, 13:48, Michael Dillon writes:]If such scalable peering already existed, I'm convinced that the current situation between Exodus and BBN would not have developped. So while those two companies figure out how to handle their relationship, maybe we could all learn from this and figure out a way to make peering work in a more scalable manner.I'm all for this. What metric(s) shall we use? Traffic is an obvious one. Is that measured in packets per second, or bits per second? Since, in the USA (where the vast majority of traffic originates) circuits are provisioned as full duplex, _does it matter_ which direction the bits are flowing in? You _should_ have provisioned adequately for the flow, in any event. That is, if you care about how much bandwidth your customers can use. Assuming it does matter, in which direction does the value flow? Towards the recipient, because the infrastructure for provisioning hundreds of DS3s costs more, and the provider is not billing correctly for it? Or is it towards the content provider, because the infrastructure for provisioning hundreds of web servers costs more, and the provider is not billing correctly for it? Another one is route-miles. A provider with 1,000 route-miles of circuits 'obviously' has less value than a provider with 10,000 route-miles of circuits. How does speed of those circuits factor in? Perhaps the metric should be DS0-route-miles (64K-circuits per mile). Of course, one WDM dark fiber run of 250 miles would nuke this metric. How about dollar value of the network, in total bills paid to the telcos? Does this mean that networks that are owned by telcos have an almost-zero cost, or an "full retail price" accounting cost? Are networks that have reciprical agreements with telcos unduely penalized, or do they benefit? Another good metric might be number of customers. As a fine point, does an ISP transit customer of a network count as one customer, or does it count as 30,000 customers (the number of dialup customers serviced by that ISP). Does a web content provider count as one customer, or as 5,000 customers (the number of his hosting customers). What about special cases that offer free email accounts and/or web pages, that have thousands or millions of customers? How about number of network advertisments, or routes? Would this lead to silly announcements (de-aggregation) to 'equalize' the number of routing announcements? We haven't even got to the hard points, which is *how much* each of these metrics are 'worth'. We also haven't begun to address sites like gatekeeper.dec.com, ftp.cdrom.com, and the like. Nor networks with plently of suck bandwidth (but not much content) such as MSN and AOL. It's harder than it looks on the surface, folks. Clues appreciated. -- Dave Rand dlr () bungi com http://www.bungi.com
--- End Message ---
Current thread:
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: BBN/GTEI Owen DeLong (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Dave Rand (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Brian Pape (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI M. David Leonard (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Dave Rand (Aug 21)
- BBN/GTEI Richard Irving (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Owen DeLong (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Patrick Greenwell (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Austin Schutz (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Owen DeLong (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI William Allen Simpson (Aug 21)
- RE: BBN/GTEI Jamie Scheinblum (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Richard Irving (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Bruce Hahne (Aug 21)