[11058] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sat Mar 19 02:15:31 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: matthew@echo.com (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 19:31:59 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, matthew@echo.com, com-priv@psi.com, cook@path.net,
In-Reply-To: <199403181726.JAA20948@echo.com> from "Matthew Kaufman" at Mar 18, 94 09:26:28 am
Note: There's some heat in here. My blood boils when I read posts from
people who are continually trying to devise a way around a voluntary
associative agreement!
Second note: CCd to Bill Washburn at the CIX.
> >From karl@mcs.com Fri Mar 18 07:59:22 1994:
> >
> > I, and others, have construed the agreement to say that "customer" is more
> > than a sham arrangement where you hand money from one place to another. It
> > involves the provision of some kind of service as is generally accepted in
> > the industry.
>
> So why, exactly, is selling "CIX Routing" to someone who's downstream
> of me NOT "some kind of service"?
Its not a DIRECT sale. READ THE AGREEMENT AGAIN.
> They give me money, I arrange to route packets to them, and DO route
> packets to them. If it weren't for me, they wouldn't get any packets at
> ALL, because they're downstream of me. Why should anybody care whether
> they've got a line directly to me, or if they've got a line to someone
> who's directly connected to me?
Because the CIX agreement says <DIRECT> customers. You are inventing a
device to give an indirect customer (commonly, in the industry, called a
"backdoor connection") a route to a place that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Note that the CIX agreement DOES NOT, <AS SOME HAVE CLAIMED>, prohibit
this arrangement. It also does not <PROTECT> this arrangement. What
you're bitching about is that if MCSNet or PSI decide to block your
backdoor connections you have ZERO recourse.
You CAN indeed sell them. Just be honest with your customers, lest you
get sued and lose for fraudulent misrepresentation when some other provider
blocks you out.
> How is that any different than what, for instance, BARRNet does... they
> sell service to a university, and then put a router at that university
> and then use that as a new POP for providing service. Why is "random-company
> pays barrnet ($12000/year) who provides service (and CIX routing) through
> a router at the university who also pays barrnet ($5000/year because they
> get a discount for being a POP)" any different from "random-company pays
> barrnet ($1/year) who provides service (CIX routing) through a router at
> the university who also pays barrnet ($12000/year, because they're just
> a customer who's doing resale now)" ?
You're saying that "random company" is paying BARRNET $1 for the connection
at the universtity? That's fine; BARRNet's POP is at the University. No
problem there at all. Now, if BARRNet is going to offer that, they should
offer it to all -- and will be out of business in a week.
Constructing a billing arrangement to hide the intent of what you're doing
doesn't wash. ANYONE can construct such a thing. MCSNet could do so. We
would easily sell a line to, oh, some other provider, and then that provider's
customers could pay us $1/year to have access to our AS. It would be a sham
arrangement, as it is designed ONLY to get around what is otherwise a
legitimate concern of a third party AND a contract to which we are a part.
That's commonly called fraud.
> There is NO definition of why one's a "sham arragement" and the other is
> "accepted industry practice" anywhere, except that which is made up by
> the various members of CIX on their own.
Sure there is. Try doing this with ANY OTHER TRADE ASSOCAITION which
provides services to members. The member which does this will find itself
cut off instantly.
> And why _should_ there be? Artificial differences have no point.
> Why should there be a distinction between "I let my users log in to
> my hosts, where I run proxy software that lets them use X windows,
> Mosaic, etc" and "I let me users appear to be one of the hosts on my
> class C network, and give them full routing so they can use X windows,
> Mosaic, etc" ?
There isn't one, except that it is harder to catch.
Yes, you heard that right.
The example above is ALSO a sham designed only to elude a requirement of
your provider (who you DECIDED FREELY TO DO BUSINESS WITH) that you wish
not to comply with.
Now if those connections do not route to the backbone you're doing nothing
that is a sham or in fact elusive. MCSNet did this when we were connected
to Alternet <with Alternet's full knowledge>. However, those users could
NOT see outside of our gateway. If we had installed Socks to get around
this restriction that <would> have been unethical at best.
> The only reason to make up differences like this is to increase the
> number of times CIX gets $10,000. And reduce the number of people who
> can be helping to expand the scope of the internet, by providing a
> nice, healthy, $10k barrier to entry.... keeping people who want to
> get a connection to their rural neighborhood and then let their neighbors
> hook up (for just enough $$$ to cover the cost of the connection)
> from being able to.
You know, I find that argument tiring and specious. MCSNet is one of those
"small" providers. REAL small in fact. 2 full-time people pulling paychecks.
Yet we DO have a CIX membership, BECAUSE WE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.
We ALSO think it is important that the TELCOs and the others in this
industry, including Ittai of ANS who has voiced sentiment for a SETTLEMENT
MODEL on the net, LOSE that war.
Either you're for us or again' us. If the CIX goes away tomorrow you can
expect to be billed BY THE BYTE for your FTPs and email. DO YOU WANT THAT
to be the model of the Internet for the future? The RBOCs and ANS would
LOVE to be able to impose this. The rest of us think that idea sucks.
> Both because they can't get CIX routing without
> coming up with an extra $10k/year, and because almost every IP provider
> in existance today, when asked about resale, says "Oh No. You Can't Do
> That. The CIX won't let us let you resell, unless you become a CIX member."
> (If they don't say "Oh No. We're greedy and want to maximize the number
> of people who are forced to connect to us.")
>
> -matthew
EVERY provider I've talked to has just said NO. The reason is obvious -
they don't want you to compete with them. Sprint says "yes, as long as
you are a CIX member IF YOU WANT CIX ROUTING for your resale customers".
That's probably because they're a Telco, and act like a Telco.
The CIX <DOES NOT> block this backdoor traffic, as MANY people can attest
to today who ARE cheating. However, INDIVIDUAL providers can choose to
block that traffic UNLESS you have a separate business arrangement with
each and every one of them.
Your "small network coop" is fucked from the start. Sorry for the strong
language, but that's how it is. How is "Small Providers Are Us" going to
negotiate INDIVIDUALLY for connectivity to all the other providers in the
world? You will not be able to afford even the legal fees to do that, say
much less the settlement charges!
Do you, as "Small Providers Are Us" want to negotiate THIRTY different
interconnect agreements? Or is the real issue that you're one of those
"The Internet ought to be free" people? If the second, give it up now --
until you have a few million to toss around in persuit of your "free"
Internet. The net NEVER has been free. Ask anyone who has signed the check
for a CISCO backbone router whether or not they think its "free" to provide
interconnect service to others.
The CIX is the best thing to ever happen to interconnectivity. Flat-rate,
no settlement connectivity to over THIRTY other providers. Grouse all you
want, but nobody is going to do this for free, and nobody has YET come up
with a more efficient model to interconnect with that many network providers
on a peer-to-peer, everyone's an equal, basis.
Note that for the price of an ANS (who has said the CIX model is "broken")
T1 connection ($70k/year unlimited) you can buy a SprintLink T1 connection
($25,000/year), the CIX membership ($10,000/year) AND have $35,000 left to
buy yourself a new Lexus with. What was that about the CIX being a bad
deal again? Looks like the best damn deal running to me.
'Nuff said.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
