[183150] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Petach)
Sat Aug 15 15:16:02 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMNd1d46d4Pqg70yYadrS6dnO9Vd3j+zyMkayNOTq+c9LA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:15:59 -0700
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I dunno, Jim, that sounds almost like you might
think the inevitable outcome will be an "everyone
pays" model of settlements, the way telcos do
it. Unfortunately, in that model, the only winners
are the transit networks in the middle, because
no accounting department is going to want to
keep track of settlements for 4,000 other ASNs
that you peer with; their demand will be "reduce
the number of invoices, aggregate through 2 or
3 providers so we only have a small number of
invoices to reconcile."
I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not
sure I like the destination. :(
Matt
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:32 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my 20+ yrs now of playing this game, "everyone" has had a turn thinkin=
g
> their content/eyeballs are special and should get free "peering".
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
>> Arrogance is the only reason I can think of why the incumbents think tha=
t
>> way. I'd be surprised if any competitive providers (regardless of their
>> market dominance) would expect free peering.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
>> To: "Matthew Huff" <mhuff@ox.com>
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
>> Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
>> Cogent in Dallas
>>
>> This issue isn=E2=80=99t limited to Cogent.
>>
>> There is this bizarre belief by the larger eyeball networks (and CC, VZ,
>> and TW are the worst offenders, pretty much in that order) that they are
>> entitled to be paid by both the content provider _AND_ the eyeball user =
for
>> carrying bits between the two.
>>
>> In a healthy market, the eyeball providers would face competition and th=
e
>> content providers would simply ignore these demands and the eyeballs wou=
ld
>> buy from other eyeball providers.
>>
>> Unfortunately, especially in the US, we don=E2=80=99t have a healthy mar=
ket. In
>> the best of circumstances, we have oligopolies and in the worst places, =
we
>> have effective (or even actual) monopolies.
>>
>> For example, in the area where I live, the claim you will hear is that
>> there is competition. With my usage patterns, that=E2=80=99s a choice be=
tween
>> Comcast (up to 30/7 $100/mo), AT&T DSL (1.5M/384k $40/mo+) and wireless =
(Up
>> to 30/15 $500+/month).
>>
>> I=E2=80=99m not in some rural backwater or even some second-tier metro. =
I=E2=80=99m within
>> 10 miles of the former MAE West and also within 10 miles of Equinix SV1 =
(11
>> Great Oaks). There=E2=80=99s major fiber bundles within 2 miles of my ho=
use. I=E2=80=99m
>> near US101 and Capitol Expressway in San Jose.
>>
>> The reason that things are this way, IMHO, is because we have allowed
>> =E2=80=9Cfacilities based carriers=E2=80=9D to leverage the monopoly on =
physical
>> infrastructure into a monopoly for services over that infrastructure.
>>
>> The most viable solution, IMHO, is to require a separation between
>> physical infrastructure providers and those that provide services over t=
hat
>> infrastructure. Breaking the tight coupling between the two and requirin=
g
>> physical infrastructure providers to lease facilities to operators on an
>> equal footing for all operators will reduce the barriers to competition =
in
>> the operator space. It will also make limited competition in the facilit=
ies
>> space possible, though unlikely.
>>
>> This model exists to some extent in a few areas that have municipal
>> residential fiber services, and in most of those localities, it is worki=
ng
>> well.
>>
>> That=E2=80=99s one of the reasons that the incumbent facilities based ca=
rriers
>> have lobbied so hard to get laws in states where a city has done this th=
at
>> prevent other cities from following suit.
>>
>> Fortunately, one of the big gains in recent FCC rulings is that these la=
ws
>> are likely to be rendered null and void.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is so much vested interest in the status quo that
>> achieving this sort of separation is unlikely without a really strong gr=
ass
>> roots movement. Sadly, the average sound-bite oriented citizen doesn=E2=
=80=99t know
>> (or want to learn) enough to facilitate such a grass-roots movement, so =
if
>> we want to build such a future, we have a long slog of public education =
and
>> recruitment ahead of us.
>>
>> In the mean time, we=E2=80=99ll get to continue to watch companies like =
CC, VZ, TW
>> screw over their customers and the content providers their customers wan=
t
>> to reach for the sake of extorting extra money from both sides of the
>> transaction.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> > On Aug 15, 2015, at 06:40 , Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's only partially about net neutrality. Cogent provides cheap
>> bandwidth for content providers, and sends a lot of traffic to eyeball
>> networks. In the past, peering partners expected symmetrical load sharin=
g.
>> Cogent feels that eyeball networks should be happy to carry their traffi=
c
>> since the customers want their services, the eyeball networks want Cogen=
t
>> to pay them extra. When there is congestion, neither side wants to upgra=
de
>> their peeing until this is resolved, so they haven't. This has been goin=
g
>> on for at least 5 years, and happens all over the cogent peering map.
>> >
>> > Depending on what protocol you are using, it can be an issue or not. O=
ur
>> end users on eyeball networks had difficulty maintaining VPN connections=
.
>> We had to drop our Cogent upstream and work with our remaining upstream
>> provides to traffic engineer around Cogent. YMMV.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
>> > Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577
>> > OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039
>> > aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jordan
>> Hamilton
>> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 5:31 PM
>> > To: nanog@nanog.org
>> > Subject: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
>> Cogent in Dallas
>> >
>> > I have several customers that are having packet loss issues, the packe=
t
>> loss appears to be associated with a Cogent router interface of
>> 38.104.86.222. My upstream provider is telling me that the packet loss i=
s
>> being caused by a net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Ques=
t
>> and Cogent in Dallas. I did some quick googling to see if I could come u=
p
>> with any articles or something like that I could provide to my customers
>> and did not see anything. Anyone know any details?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Jordan Hamilton
>> > Senior Telecommunications Engineer
>> >
>> > Empire District Electric Co.
>> > 720 Schifferdecker
>> > PO Box 127
>> > Joplin, MO 64802
>> >
>> > Ph: 417-625-4223
>> > Cell: 417-388-3351
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
>> sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mai=
l
>> security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
>> >
>> > --
>> > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of THE
>> EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY, are confidential, and are intended sol=
ely
>> for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed.=
If
>> you are not one of the named recipients or otherwise have reason to beli=
eve
>> that you have received this message in error, please delete this message
>> immediately from your computer and contact the sender by telephone at
>> (417)-625-5100.
>> > Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copyi=
ng
>> of this email is strictly prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>
