[116160] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Thu Jul 23 14:57:51 2009
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
To: Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org>, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:56:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20090723112726.GB68894@reptiles.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link
> to
> the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at
> 3
> or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
>=20
> they likely have contracts or obligations with their immediate
> neighbours,
> which is basically why the system continues to work.
>=20
I'm not sure if this is the benefit for the lurkers or the old guys, or wil=
l eventually get recycled in the press and give me a headache, but here goe=
s.=20
I think what people seem to keep skipping over is the concept that packets =
generated from "A" go to ISP "B" who has relationship with C... to pass pac=
kets to "Z". From the point of view of "C" all packets from "B" (including =
"A") are just "B"'s traffic. It's not as simple as I have an agreement with=
my neighbor and we pass slop around.=20
If I am "C", whatever my neighbor is moving is essentially of equal value i=
n my agreement with my neighbor (until one of us chooses to renegotiate it:=
i.e. peering dispute, whatever). No matter which "A" is sending it to "B".=
I don't *really* get the option to pick and choose on a per packet basis.
In the case of three intervening networks, each is aggregating their custom=
ers' traffic and passing the relevant portions to the neighboring network (=
presumably for *their* aggregated customers' traffic).=20
This is, in some ways, fundamentally different than the US highway system, =
where if I'm driving a truck between one state and another, the next state =
(even though they have interconnection agreements) can set different rules =
on me than the state I just left. I know this happens with (for example) Mi=
chigan and its neighbors.=20
In the Internet context, my neighbor is responsible to abide by our agreeme=
nt and prevent the traffic coming over to me from violating that agreement =
and I am allowed to police and enforce that border any way I want.=20
What this means is that if "A" is affected by something, from my perspectiv=
e as "C", "B" is absolutely authoritative for the discussion about "A"'s tr=
affic and what to do with it. (No matter how many "B"'s A has contracted wi=
th, B and C do not have to ask A for permission for ways/means/methods to m=
ove packets). We can agree to drop it on the floor, give it priority or spe=
cial treatment or generally just ignore it and let the packets pass the way=
they will.=20
This how the so-called community "volunteers" have so much ability to affec=
t and improve the system. Everyone operates in their own fiefdom owing litt=
le allegiance (other than those of commerce and equity) to its neighbors. I=
may charge a tariff to enter my fiefdom, but once packets enter my fiefdom=
, they are my packets. I protect them, and try to speed them on their way w=
ithout impediment and I negotiate with others on their behalf to improve th=
eir happiness.
And continuing the micro-economics analogy... this is why periodic wars bre=
ak out between larger fiefdoms and there is little way to influence them to=
play for the "good" of the system. The only way to influence them is for t=
heir own good.
DJ
P.S. I've been scratching my head and wondering what this TED thing is all =
about, it seems like a big cheerleading thing..
