Re: Comments

[Peter Dawe <peter () unipalm co uk>]

Milo S. Medin wrote ...

>        Milo S. Medin wrote ...
>
>        ...
>
>        I knew the truth about NAPS would come out.
>
> I think you are overreacting here.

I've been bringing these points to meetings for close to a year now and 
I've always got one of three answers,
   It is a pure US internal problem - IT ISNT
   We don't know what is going to happen in the end - I can believe it!
   You'll have to live with it, negotiate with the NSPs - True but I dont want
the deck stacked against me

The level of uncertainty here, combined with the lack of acknowledgement that
there is a REAL problem here makes for what some might call over-reaction!


> I don't think anyone has been hiding
> anything intentionally.  We're only recently getting enough of the details
> of how the NAP's are to be implemented to have cogent discussions.
>
>        The idea is to squeeze out the small US players and force them to 
>        pay the DS3 capable telcos for their access.
>
> No, the idea here is to transition from a currently operating core network
> backbone that is central to the global Internet to a system where this
> functionality is provided by a set of NSPs', and RA, and do this without
> breaking anything.
>
> The issue that I have been trying to address is really that a NAP can't
> be used as a dessert topping and a floor wax at the same time.  You can't
> optimize for everything.

You have got to optimise for the diverse character of your customers if you
are not to be anti-competative, The Telecos used the - we can only cope with
one teleco per a country for a long time!

>  This is a limit of the technology and human
> factors that we have to deal with today.  In the future, this may change,
> but today, if you try and be all things to all people, you will be poor
> in almost every aspect of whatever you try and do.
>
>
>        Is this anti-competative or what!
>
> No, it's not.  It's called partitioning the problem space so that you can
> actually make progress.  Look, I'm sure you would be unhappy if you could
> get a NAP attachement and the performance and reliability was so bad 
> that your user's switched providers because of the poor service they were
> getting.

One (new) point here is the set-up removes any choice, to have govt-$ you MUST
connect to ALL NAPs, to get connectivity to all govt-$ nets you must connect
to all NAPs. How about making the NAPs a marketplace on day one! and make
govt-$ only subject to connectivity to a (high) percentage of hosts on the
Internet. Let the service providers choose their mechanisms, NAPs, GIX, CIX, ....

My gut tells me you would end up with maybe two national, one international
and many local ( state/city ) interconnects.

> Besides, why do you think that you will be better off attaching to a NAP
> rather than attaching directly to an NSP?

If you make connection at DS3 obligatory, then many do not have a choice!

definition of anti-competative, removal of choice



> Do you think that some NSP is
> obligated to carry your traffic to the other NAP's or NSP's?  The general
> purpose transit network that NSF is providing today is going away.  
> Connecting directly to a NAP isn't going to change that.  Remember all
> those bilateral agreements that people are talking about?  Nothing says
> that people have to accept your traffic for free or even peer with you.
> This is true whether you are NAP connected or not (except for the issue
> of NSP's who are contracted with by regionals with NSF money, and then
> only for R&E traffic).

As an International service provider, I expect each nation to pay for their
own network. If non-US ISPs have to pay NSPs for NAP connectivity then the
US Internet will be subsidised by the rest of the world! Great for the US I
guess, but not so good for global networking.

                        Thanks,
>                                                  Milo

...end


Peter
Internet:- The right to say what you want to the world, and for them not to listen



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -