November 2003 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Peering at the APE and WIX - was Re: Irked with TelstraClear
by Andy Linton 26 Nov '03

26 Nov '03

I posted some notes yesterday about peering with the APE and WIX route servers and gave a link for application forms which wasn't as useful as it might have been. For reference the forms are at: http://www.citylink.co.nz/cgi-bin/wixape.pl?tmpl=ape.tmpl http://www.citylink.co.nz/cgi-bin/wixape.pl?tmpl=wix.tmpl Joe Abley posted some ideas on peering - one obvious one that he hasn't gone the whole distance with is that if many of the small/medium players work together they will be in a better position to negotiate peering with the two large telcos. Consider the stories here: http://www.tomsdomain.com/aesop/id17.htm

7 10

ICANN's Legacy? - The threat to universal Internet connectivity
by Jeff Williams 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

All, See: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/21/46FEtrouble_1.html?s=feature The threat to universal Internet connectivity Can -- and should -- blockers, spammers, and domain name overlords be stopped? By David L. Margulius Thank you David for this breath or fresh air, honest evaluation, and interesting report.. Someday maybe Vint, and that "Crowed" will "Get it"... But in the mean time it may be time to throw the rascals out and have a new and inclusive beginning?? Will the NTIA take heed? Will Telstra and AT&T also take heed?? Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

1 0

RE: [nznog] Peering Issue - from a business point of view
by Paul Adshead 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

And then if if Telecom did join in and on-charged the more expensive Intl bw, how many customers would end up with Telecom bills like the one linked to below?? http://mike.net.nz/stuff/jetstream.jpg (Not mine by the way.) Paul Adshead Network & Systems OTL Software Ltd -----Original Message----- From: Matt Camp [mailto:gargoyle(a)noise.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2003 15:29 To: Tikiri Wicks Cc: 'nznog' Subject: Re: [nznog] Peering Issue - from a business point of view [Everything in this email is my own uninformed personal opinion, and has absolutely nothing to do with TelstraClear's official position on anything at all. I'm not involved in any of this stuff, so don't quote me on anything, kthx] On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tikiri Wicks wrote: > In that case what about if all the small ISP's as a group peer with one > layer 3 switch at the APE and another one at the WIX. This way Telstra would > have to peer with everyone or not peer with anyone. Ah, but what happens when they choose not to peer with this group? And then what happens when Telecom takes a similar line? All of a sudden you've got a bunch of ISP's who are paying for international bandwidth through one of the other providers like AT&T, probably per byte, and they're having to use that bw to transit domestic traffic to everyone else. The problem is that the people making these decisions DO have reasons for making these changes... the reasons may be totally commercially based and have nothing to do with the feelgood ethos of the internet, but if the suits at TelstraClear are having those thoughts, I'll bet you a dollar there is someone in a suit at Telecom thinking "hey... if they can do it, so can we... and if we both do it, then everyone else will HAVE to buy a connection". > If all the non Telco ISP's were to be lumped into one pile that would be a > lot of such internet services and web sites. But remember, only the people who do not already have a TelstraClear service are potentially at risk of having their peering cut (according to jsr's quoted statement from Mathew Bolland).... How many of the non-telco ISP's in NZ don't have a TelstraClear link? How about if you add in the theory that Telecom takes the same line? All of a sudden your group of people is a whole lot smaller. While its nice to think that many ISP's will join your group trying to force peering, I think you'll find that many of them are still run by people who are more concerned about their business continuing and can't afford to take commercial risks just to uphold the ethos. > If all of these were as a group with rules that state peer with the all or > do not peer at all. Essentially a gigabit Layer 3 switch at the NEW > exchange. What this means is that parties would not peer with individual > small ISP's rather they would peer with the entire group. aka... the route servers? > The Telstra consumer would most probably switch to his friends connection. I think there would be more to it than that. Especially if Telecom took the same line, thus forcing all the non-telco ISP's to use more expensive bw, and charge their customers international rates for what should be domestic traffic. I haven't been involved with any of this peering stuff, but my feeling is that perhaps (as Tony implied), there is a lot more to this than people realise, and in fact its not just TelstraClear trying to be big and bad. --- Matt Camp _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

Re: [nznog] Peering Issue - from a business point of view
by Tikiri Wicks 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

p.s. I have NO affiliation with Maxnet I just use an email address from them. > What would that achieve? It won't solve the problem that John Russell > brought up. There is NO need to set up any other peering exchanges. > > You are confusing the issue. Get someone at the maxnet > nog to explain it to you I'm not trying to look at it from a technical point. What I mean is purely from a business point of view. In that case what about if all the small ISP's as a group peer with one layer 3 switch at the APE and another one at the WIX. This way Telstra would have to peer with everyone or not peer with anyone. New Zealand Internet consumers have great interest in other Internet related services and web sites in New Zealand. For example the earlier reference to nzdating.co.nz A large portion of these New Zealand based ineternet services and websites are physically hosted by ISP's other than Telstra and Telecom. Not to mention the end consumers themselves. If all the non Telco ISP's were to be lumped into one pile that would be a lot of such internet services and web sites. If all of these were as a group with rules that state peer with the all or do not peer at all. Essentially a gigabit Layer 3 switch at the NEW exchange. What this means is that parties would not peer with individual small ISP's rather they would peer with the entire group. In this scenario what would happen ? A Telstra consumer tries to access www.nzdating.co.nz what happens ? it is not accessible for them. The next day (or same day) he/she whines to his/her friends about nzdating not beign there. But his/her friend is on a dialup to ICONZ / Slingshot / _____ and they could access the site with no hassles. Instant conclusion is something is wrong with Telstra. The Telstra consumer would most probably switch to his friends connection. The key is to achieve critical mass. You guys can only achieve this critical mass as a group. Not as individual companies as you are too small alone to make any difference. Only as a group. Cheers Tikiri ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lin Nah" <lin(a)darkmere.gen.nz> To: "Tikiri Wicks" <tcwicks(a)maxnet.co.nz> Cc: "Tony Wicks" <nzog(a)road.gen.nz> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] Peering Issue - Perhaps a solution > HI Tikiri > > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tikiri Wicks wrote: > > I realize that the APE and the WIX already exist but what I'm talking about > > is setting up a second peering point with different game rules. Namely Give > > as much as you take > What would that achieve? It won't solve the problem that John Russell > brought up. There is NO need to set up any other peering exchanges. > > You are confusing the issue. Get someone at the maxnet > nog to explain it to you > > > What you guys don't seem to understand is that if all the smaller ISP's > > Maxnet, IHUG, Slingshot, etc.... were all combined into one (big lump) that > > is probably way more end consumers than what Telstra has. And probably > > enough to get Telecom thinking as well > > regards > lin > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tony Wicks" <nzog(a)road.gen.nz> > > To: "'Tikiri Wicks'" <tcwicks(a)maxnet.co.nz> > > Cc: "'nznog'" <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:14 AM > > Subject: RE: [nznog] Peering Issue - Perhaps a solution > > > > > > I hate to mention the obvious Tikiri, but that already exsists, they are > > called APE and WIX. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tikiri Wicks [mailto:tcwicks(a)maxnet.co.nz] > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2003 11:13 a.m. > > To: Andy Linton; nznog > > Subject: [nznog] Peering Issue - Perhaps a solution > > > > Just a thought here > > > > Since most ISP's in NZ seem to be in agreement over this. What if > > instead of just blowing off steam: > > > > Everyone joins hands and sets up two (or more) peering exchanges. One in > > Auckland and one in Wellington. Then everyone simply drops all peering with > > Telstra (and / or Telecom if and where relevant) and interconnect through > > the two (or more) exchange points. The idea is that no one would pay for > > anything except for the cost of connectiong yourselves to the exchange > > points. Whether this be via tangent / united network / citylink / some big > > SDH radio link / microwave / a whole bunch of people running to the > > exchanges with buckets fileld with packets :) > > > > Peering would be voluntary for anyone and on the condition that each > > provides the same amount of bandwidth under the same conditions from their > > network to the exchange as they do from teh exchange to their network. > > > > That should keep players like Telecom and Telstra from trying to > > manipulate the market. > > > > If Telstra want to peer they would be forced to do so at the same > > conditions that apply to everyone else > > > > Also the costs of interconnectivity between the exchange points could be > > borne by the members based on some simple equation such as for example a > > ratio based on the amount of bandwidth with which they connect to the > > exchanges. Fill in the blanks here ________ > > > > Finally I would think that this would be a great opportunity for > > operators like tangent who have fibre running between the two (or more) > > hypothetical exchanges. > > > > Cheers > > > > Tikiri > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andy Linton" <asjl(a)citylink.co.nz> > > To: "nznog" <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 10:53 AM > > Subject: [nznog] Peering at the APE and WIX - was Re: Irked with > > TelstraClear > > > > > > > I posted some notes yesterday about peering with the APE and WIX route > > > servers and gave a link for application forms which wasn't as useful as > > > it might have been. For reference the forms are at: > > > > > > http://www.citylink.co.nz/cgi-bin/wixape.pl?tmpl=ape.tmpl > > > http://www.citylink.co.nz/cgi-bin/wixape.pl?tmpl=wix.tmpl > > > > > > Joe Abley posted some ideas on peering - one obvious one that he hasn't > > > gone the whole distance with is that if many of the small/medium players > > > work together they will be in a better position to negotiate peering > > > with the two large telcos. > > > > > > Consider the stories here: > > > > > > http://www.tomsdomain.com/aesop/id17.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NZNOG mailing list > > > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NZNOG mailing list > > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NZNOG mailing list > > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > >

3 2

RE: [nznog] Peering Issue - Perhaps a solution
by Donald Neal 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: nznog-bounces+Donald.Neal=telecom.co.nz(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > [mailto:nznog-bounces+Donald.Neal=telecom.co.nz(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On > Behalf Of Tikiri Wicks > Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2003 11:13 > To: Andy Linton; nznog > Subject: [nznog] Peering Issue - Perhaps a solution > > > Just a thought here > > Since most ISP's in NZ seem to be in agreement over this. What if > instead of just blowing off steam: > > Everyone joins hands and sets up two (or more) peering > exchanges. One in > Auckland and one in Wellington. Then everyone simply drops > all peering with > Telstra (and / or Telecom if and where relevant) and > interconnect through > the two (or more) exchange points. As the monthly posting to this list says, >Internet Exchanges >See http://www.ape.net.nz/ for details of the Auckland Peering >Exchange and those connected there, http://www.wix.net.nz/ for the >Wellington Internet Exchange. Donald Neal | "They won't wobble. They won't! Technical Specialist | I shall lean against them Operations Engineering | myself, and I'm 6ft 6in. I will Integration & Services Divn. | personally eliminate wobble." Alcatel NZ Ltd | All opinions mine only. | - Russell T. Davies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

(no subject)
by Ben Martel 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

1 0

RE: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear
by J S Russell 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Neil Gardner wrote: > JSR, Do you have any numbers or names of people that this sort of > (justified, and for gosh sake, please be polite when doing it) enquiry > would be best directed towards? Personally, were I a TelstraClear customer, I would be inclined to treat it as a fault, yes. And I would guess that fault reports should be sent though normal account management channels. JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff.

2 1

Re: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear
by Simon Lyall 24 Nov '03

24 Nov '03

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, J S Russell wrote: > Nope - as I outlined earlier, we treated it as damage and routed around > it. Technology triumphs over stupidity! Huzzah! Hmm, still some customers of TesltraClear [1] might be seeing less than optimal connectivity to Iconz hosted sites. Why not approach them and suggest that they get direct connectivity to APE,WIX or wherever? If they are paying $25 per 64Kbits/sec per month then they don't need much bandwidth to start saving money. As a bonus, next time their bandwidth negotiations come around they'll be able to pick from any ISP that's APE connected for their bandwidth. Here are a few possibles that are fairly big but appear (from a quick glance) to be only domestically routed via TesltraClear currently: aut.ac.nz auckland.ac.nz vuw.ac.nz waikato.ac.nz iserve.co.nz actrix.co.nz scarfies.net wave.co.nz I would guess a few admins from there are already on this list, some might already be getting complaints about domestic connectivity. I'd be interested in their take on the situation. [1] My Spell checker keeps trying to substitute "Testicular" for "TelstraClear" , then again it also tried to do "thug" for "ihug" :) -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

1 0

[Fwd: RE: [nznog] Changes to Telecom ADSL Network]
by kyle carter 24 Nov '03

24 Nov '03

I personally am happy with this topic being discussed on list.. however being an anonymous looking sender is a bit off putting. Many of the topic on this list i dont have a problem with, but i do like to know is going on with regards to the internet in NZ. This is a topic i have been asked about by many people i know who arent gamers but have been experiencing many issues with the latency of their connections when nearing max bandwidth usage. I did not experience any problems with the previous traffic shaping with the dropping of packets, however i have experienced some very weird issues with the new packet shaping when nearing the bandwidth limits of my jetstart connection. On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 07:29, Craig Spiers wrote: > Why was this posted to NZNOG? > > If you have gripes with telecom, take it up with telecom? > > I personally don't have a problem with the changes telecom have made.. And I > believe it hasn't been done on purpose, but a side effect from the changing > of equipment vendors.. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anonymous User [mailto:ominona(a)emailaccount.com] > Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2003 6:26 p.m. > To: adsl(a)lists.unixathome.org; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: [nznog] Changes to Telecom ADSL Network > > An interesting topic for discussion: > > Telecom is installing new equipment in its ADSL network, which handles > traffic congestion in a slightly different way than previously. > Overview > Telecom is installing new equipment in its network, which handles traffic > congestion in a slightly different way than previously.

4 3

Changes to Telecom ADSL Network
by Anonymous User 22 Nov '03

22 Nov '03

An interesting topic for discussion: Telecom is installing new equipment in its ADSL network, which handles traffic congestion in a slightly different way than previously. Overview Telecom is installing new equipment in its network, which handles traffic congestion in a slightly different way than previously. When a traffic burst exceeds the rated capacity of that connection, any overflow data is now queued temporarily and sent as soon as the congestion is cleared - normally within milliseconds. This change should enhance the experience for most Internet users, however some gaming customers may have increased sensitivity to other applications running in the background. To achieve the best online game playing experience, Telecom is working to ensure that the connections are optimised and queuing is minimised. Users wanting the best gaming experience should avoid running other applications or PCs on the same connection or upgrade their connection to a higher speed to ensure queues are minimised. Frequently Asked Questions: Q. Why can multiple users on one connection now not connect when playing games? A. Telecom is installing new equipment in the network, which handles traffic congestion in a slightly different way than previously. When a traffic burst exceeds the rated capacity of that connection, any overflow data is now queued temporarily and sent as soon as the congestion is cleared - normally within milliseconds. Q. Why has Telecom made this change? A. This change means that packets of data, which previously may have been dropped, will now reach their destination. This change should enhance the experience for most Internet users, however some gaming customers may have increased sensitivity to other applications running in the background. Q. This is obviously having a negative effect on my games experience - why don't you change it back? A. For the majority of customers, the new queue shaping provides them with a better Internet experience. Telecom is working to ensure that the connections are optimised and queuing is minimised. Users wanting the best gaming experience should avoid running other applications or PCs on the same connection or upgrade their existing connection to a higher speed to ensure queues are minimised. Q. Why didn't you notify customers of this change? A. Telecom regularly makes changes to its Network and indeed, announced earlier this year that it was overhauling its JetStream portfolio. With so many changes being made in various parts of the Network, it is impractical to notify all customers whenever a change is made. Q. Isn't this just a ploy to get us on to your 256k plans where we have to pay for all traffic? A. Customers are free to choose the most appropriate plan for their needs. The Xtra JetStream 256k and Full speed plans obviously offer customers a bigger pipe, so the chances of packets getting dropped or queued are less. ~ John Doe _____________________________________________________________ Free, simple, fast, memorable email Become you(a)EmailAccount.com at http://www.emailaccount.com/

2 1