[11380] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Some simple questions (was Re:The whole CIX concept is flawed)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Wed Mar 30 19:41:15 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 01:03:21 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9403291603.AA28481@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> from "Anonymous" at Mar 29, 94 11:03:21 am
> karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> >Nonsense.
> >
> >I've said this a few thousand times, and I'll say it once more:
>
> > NOTHING in the CIX Agreement is a negative obligation that leads to
> > the <CIX> cutting people off.
>
> >What has been said is that the providers, unless they're CIX members, MAY
> >cut people off at their discretion.
>
> The question is WHY would they do it and even if the CIX agreement doesn't
> OBLIGATE them to cut off non-CIX providers, what is the intention of the
> CIX, concretely, regarding non-member providers?
I have had nothing put before me as a member that would indicate a position
one way or another, beyond the general statement that the association
exists for the purpose of furthering interconnectivity.
> The only thing that I've
> seen or heard is that there is no obligation to cut off routing, however
> there have been implications that they may do this and I'd like the
> intentions stated concretely so we don't need to play guessing games.
> WILL or WILL NOT CIX possibly cut them off, if so for what reason? Or if
> they can't say now for what possible reason might they consider it ever in
> the future?
There have been implications by people who have taken to snarking at me
because I have asserted the truth -- which is the fact that there is no
<requirement> -- other than what my customers want -- that I "play nice"
outside of those agreements that I negotiate with other providers and/or
the CIX membership through the mutual membership agreement.
> The obvious reason would be to get their protection money. And THE
> question then is how will they justify this to their customers who get hurt
> by this by losing connectivity themselves? CIX can't speak for the
> individual ISPs I understand. However, an additional question would be do
> any of them plan to cut off non CIX provider routing? If so how will they
> justify to their customers cutting their customers off from places they may
> wish to reach? (ie. Sorry customer X, you can't reach your subcontractor
> now because we feel like screwing one of our competitors despite the fact
> that we are screwing one of our customers at the same time). I have seen NO
> reasonable response to this issue.
That's because neither I, nor anyone else, can formulate a "reasonable"
response to this issue. There isn't one, and nobody in their right mind is
going to say "we'll talk to anyone" on terms <you> dictate. No, we all
have minds, and we all make those decisions on our own as business
executives.
Look, Mr. Anonymous. I take controversial stands on occasion in this
forum. Everyone here knows who I am. You all know who my company is.
You know what I stand for, and why.
The fact of the matter is that my policies and procedures are driven by
the reason that we exist - and that is our customers. The fact of the
matter is also that I cannot -- repeat -- cannot -- speak to the intentions
of any other provider, no matter who they are, nor can I "dictate" terms to
them. I can <negotiate> terms. One would hope that people are reasonable,
but one cannot <make> people be reasonable.
> >> The network will grow through alot of grass roots providers, so we wish to
> >> make sure they don't have problems and can get on with building the
> >> network.
> >
> >The problem is, as I see it, that those "grass roots" providers want
> >something for nothing. Can't happen in the real world.
>
> No. Providing routine between two ISPs, or an ISP and all the CIX providers
> benefits BOTH sides in increased conectivity (and potential increased usage
> leading to people buying larger pipes). A simple question, if two ISPs
> connect and route traffic, WHY should the smaller ISP pay the larger ISP?
> (if anything the smaller ISP may have more overhead to route to the
> larger). Why shouldn't the larger pay the smaller? The real question is
> why either should pay the other. For each connection between them, there is
> a customer X on the ISP A side, and customer Y on the ISP B side, and if
> there isn't a routing it is hurting BOTH SIDES EQUALLY. Its only that
> percentage of traffic wise it hurts the larger one less, and so they can
> extort money from the smaller one.
Yep. And that is the problem with settlements. Extortion. The second
problem (and perhaps the worse one) is the use of "back door" connections
to unload your own traffic onto someone else so you don't have to buy
capacity.
Anyone who knows what they're doing can change administrative distances
such that if they have a network with an overloaded leg, and an
interconnect in the right place, they can "give" that traffic to their
competitor or "peer" (!) Is that fair? Nope. But it can be done, and
rather easily, if you know what you're doing. Web-style connectivity is
really a matter of trust on all parties to the interconnections. You don't
have to like them -- and in fact, you probably won't -- people don't always
get along -- but you DO have to believe that those you peer with will
behave, if not ethically by your definition, at least responsibly. The
only other way to play is with a nice iron-clad contract.
> We aren't trying to get something for nothing, we'll pay for things that
> it makes sense to charge for such as bandwidth, and actual direct
> connections. We'll happily pay someplace $10k year for routing, if they'll
> then pay us $10k a year in return for routing them.
> The paperwork is just much easier without that.
> We could just as well try to bill the CIX, or individual ISPs for routing
> their traffic, we just can't get away with it since we are small enough
> they don't care whether we route them or not.
MCSNet peers with people if and when it makes sense. You're going to
eat a port on my CISCO, and a CSU/DSU, and some amount of route table
space and CPU power to do that. That's a capital expense that I have to
think I'll get sufficient value from. We need to agree on what runs
where (ie: CISCO, Wellfleet, etc), and how we exchange routes (BGP is,
of course, presumed). And we need to agree on backdoor policy, and
that we won't "unload" traffic on one another to avoid upgrading our
respective physical and long-line plants -- or some agreement on
compensation if we <do> agree to do this between us.
Now if anyone wants to <give> me a port board (assuming I have a free
slot to put it in :-) and a T1 CSU/DSU, and pull a line here, well, I'd
be rather stupid to say "no" to that wouldn't I? I mean, let's be real.
Of course that's one-sided -- as is going the other way and saying that
I'll pull a line, and give you a board, and a CSU/DSU for your end, etc.
Somewhere in the middle, if it makes sense for both of us, there is an
accomodation. Perhaps you pull the line. Perhaps we do. Perhaps we split
it, and buy our own gear on our ends. All the CIX has done is make that
accomodation a known quantity, and frankly, a pretty cheap one. If you tried
to pull 30 of these lines, and add 30 ports, and 30 CSU/DSU's, as a small
provider you <would> go broke. If you don't believe me try pricing this
kind of gear. Got an extra $250,000 laying around for this little project?
And oh, by the way, that's only the first year's line + capital cost.
Next -- let's say we work a deal. I give you a reciprocal peering
arrangement. What makes you think I have the right to pass on those routes
I learn from you to <others> I might have peered with, or will in the future?
Perhaps they don't want me to. Perhaps they <do>, but again, you can't
dictate those terms. You can only ask, and show why its in my best
interest. If it is, then we all play together.
> I'd like a simple explanation of why, other than the fact they can get
> away with it, CIX or any other ISP should be paid for routing that benefits
> both sides. We'll pay for the pipe to connect to the net, but why should we
> join CIX?? What do we get, aside from not being cut off? (ie "protection")
Let's turn that around -- I ask why you think that someone <shouldn't> do
what they think is best for their business? Why is it that you, or anyone
else, has a right to dictate to anyone else what their terms of corporate
operation should be?
> Why am I posting anonymously? I don't currently know the intentions of CIX
> and its member providers regarding routing to non-members, and I don't wish
> them to decide to use us as an example. I've had no qualms in participating
> in more controversial discussions on other lists non-anonymously, however
> there wasn't the concern about being cut off. As far as I know at the
> moment CIX could at any time decide to cut off routing to us (and as the
> fellow from EUnet mentioned, there wouldn't be anyone out there to come to
> our rescue). If we had someplace as popular as wuarchive for instance they
> wouldn't be able to do that without their customers screaming. But we
> don't.
I find this interesting, to say the least. MCSNet is another of those
"small" providers. Just look at the routes we announce. Only a few from
our AS, 3365. Yet we are growing like crazy -- and why? Because we're
STRAIGHT WITH THE PUBLIC AND OUR CUSTOMERS -- above and beyond everything
else.
Hiding behind "someone might spank me, but I don't think I'm being bad" is
a VERY BAD idea. Do you tell your customers that you're concerned about
this issue? If you are, and it IS a material risk to you, then you're
committing fraud by keeping silent if their expectation is that they can
route to and through CIX members. If you DO get burned in the future by
this policy one of your customers could own your company. All it takes is
one customer reading com-priv and archiving your messages, and enough
evidence to discover that its ******.NET speaking here.
If you understood the CIX and its architecture you would know that it is
not that easy to block routes to your customers. It can be done, but its
not trivial. Now from an individual provider standpoint it IS trivial --
one line in my CISCO configs and you're hosed. The question is, WHY would
I do that unless you're doing something that I believe is destabilizing
to the network as a whole?
Dodge-em tactics are something you can do, but I consider them unwise.
Come "out of the closet" Mr. Anonymous.
--
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.
