- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

RE: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes
by Gordon Smith 30 May '04

30 May '04

One thing that noone seems to have noticed yet, is that using TCNZ for transit in this way is virtually impossible due to the manner in which they route traffic. TCNZ use BGP communities to tag and filter, as did Clear before them. So ingress and egress paths are filtered at the exchange points. I don't know if Telecom have started using communities to manipulate traffic paths yet, but if they haven't, I'd say it's only a matter of time. The peering argument is a political one rather than a technical one. In my opinion, "unauthorised transit" is nothing more than a convenient excuse. If it did actually happen, perhaps they'd be better odd re-visiting filtering policies. Just my .02c worth :-) Cheers, Gordon

2 1

Re: [nznog] Indian government plans Internet exchanges
by Keith Davidson 28 May '04

28 May '04

Others wrote: > > Someone with some spare hands on their time needs to lobby > > the government to make peering in NZ legislation. > > > > Although TNZ and TCNZ will be wearing a lot of the network > > costs in terms of trunking traffic up and down the country, > > they also have most of the customers - so I think that's fair > > and justified. > > Yes it is good idea. > > So why not also make the Govt responsible for the trunking between > peering sites as well? > ISPs could still organise private peering for priority traffic in this > scenario. Is this an issue that nznog feels InternetNZ should pick up on? Keith Davidson President - InternetNZ

4 7

RE: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes
by Donald Neal 28 May '04

28 May '04

> On Behalf Of Russell Fulton > Sent: Friday, 28 May 2004 1:56 p.m. > To: nznog > Subject: Re: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes > > > On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:46, Don Gould wrote: > [...] > > * Why don't the IX have clear policies on this issue? > > Perhaps a better question is "When are the IXs going to > establish clear > policies on this issue?" > > Russell. Perhaps they already have a clear (no pun intended) policy - they're not responsible for what routes you advertise. - Donald Neal All opinions mine only. Donald Neal | Alphabet - ancient Technical Specialist | Greek lottery. Operations Engineering | [Martin Neal] Integration & Services Division +----------------------- Alcatel NZ Ltd - Telecom's network operations manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

RE: [nznog] Indian government plans Internet exchanges
by Seeby Woodhouse 28 May '04

28 May '04

What a good idea. Someone with some spare hands on their time needs to lobby the government to make peering in NZ legislation. Although TNZ and TCNZ will be wearing a lot of the network costs in terms of trunking traffic up and down the country, they also have most of the customers - so I think that's fair and justified. If they are worried about people using their networks as a free national backbone via the peering points, there are ways to allow peering but prevent being used as free transit... Cheers Seeby -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [mailto:asjl(a)citylink.co.nz] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:33 AM To: nznog Subject: [nznog] Indian government plans Internet exchanges This URL points to the incoming Indian governments 10 point agenda form IT - http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2004/104052609.asp In particular, see point 5: 5. Plan to connect all ISPs in India to a national internet exchange in order to achieve efficient internet traffic routing, cost reduction and improve quality of service for the Internet users in India. Four Internet exchanges points to be fully operationalised. Small and big ISPs to route their traffic through this exchange to ensure the security of domestic traffic. Currently, 25 ISPs are connected. ---- Note the reasons for doing this especially "improve quality of service for the Internet users". _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

7 6

RE: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes
by Barry Murphy 27 May '04

27 May '04

Ok, But I still fail to see how this works. 1./ I buy my international pipe through telstra 2./ I buy my national pipe through telstra 3./ I try connect to nzdating.com but because iconz doesn't per with telstra, I use international and not 'national' and my pictures load SLOWLY!!! *phones helpdesk to complain about slow browsing* I'd freak. Whats T&T going to do to provide 'national' connectivity? Is it only national if the remote ISP peers with T. Is national defined as being within T's network only? That sucks BIG time. Somebodys been playing with their calculator to long and doesn't understand the internet to be able to make decisions like this. B My thoughts alone. -----Original Message----- From: Craig Spiers [mailto:craig(a)concept.net.nz] Sent: Friday, 28 May 2004 4:02 p.m. To: 'Barry Murphy'; 'Don Gould'; 'neil gardner' Cc: 'nznog' Subject: RE: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes I think this is a stupid idea, how would you control who pays for what percentage of the link? What about the larger networks who utilise 50% of the shared link? Better to just get your own link and be done with it.. :) -----Original Message----- From: Barry Murphy [mailto:barry(a)unix.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 28 May 2004 3:59 p.m. To: 'Don Gould'; 'neil gardner' Cc: 'nznog' Subject: RE: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes Why would everyone have to peer with T&T? 1./ Why don't all the ISP's currently peering at APE & WIX chip in a little and purchase a link between APE and both T or T. 2./ Assuming the traffic is flat rate and they don't charge you big time for the link, ISP's have domestic BW again 3./ Any traffic coming from T or T should go international, until such time as T or T purchase links to APE or your provider. I know this scenario is going to use up international bandwidth, but hey, outgoing bandwidth isn't as important as incoming. T&T customers will suffer the most. Barry -----Original Message----- From: Don Gould [mailto:don(a)bowenvale.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 28 May 2004 1:46 p.m. To: neil gardner Cc: nznog Subject: Re: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes That's a really good question... 'bring it on'... Small claims wouldn't take much to defend and I'd suggest that's a fight the isp wants to loose (without it costing them to much in traffic so a smaller customer would be prefered). Start getting cases like this turning up in the court system and you've got leverage for a number of government agencies to take actions. However what's this question really about? Like you Neil I've been reading thru the endless banter and a few other questions come to mind... * Who are these ISPs that are using T&T for transit that shouldn't be? Why are we not also focusing on the limited number of these folk who are wrecking things for everyone else? ...or am I about to be told to shut up and keep quiet because I'm showing ignorance by not knowing that everyones doing it?! * Why don't the IX have clear policies on this issue? Why is the core of each IX not dealing to this? IX are generally a community venture, why haven't the IX set up to protect the community interest against these rogue users? Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking sides here, I've just been following the discussion and it seems to me that people are keeping quiet on some issue - perhaps I'm just stating the obvious and as a list newbi I'm just not up with all the politics yet? Someone called for someone with time to take the issue up with some lobying.... I'd put up a hand and have a look but as I see it at present the arguments suggest that the industry got what was coming to is... please don't abuse and flame me for that comment, I'm just saying it as I see it based on what's been presented in this discussion todate. Cheers Don _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

3 2

TC & T Possible Peering changes
by neil gardner 27 May '04

27 May '04

Goodness there has been a lot of stuff to wade through. I'm quite familiar with the benefits of peering and the (revenue) reasons that the big players want to change, but could someone please definitively answer this question... Will the proposed changes by Telstra mean that a large number of people currently paying different rates for National and International traffic will suddenly find that their ISP starts defining an awful lot more geographically national servers as International traffic? If this is indeed the case, have the various ISPs gotten their T&C well enough defined to defend against someone going to the small claims court and disputing a bill where traffic is obviously from a national server, even if it has transited an international link - since the ISP (may have) made a deliberate choice to route that traffic in a non-optimal fashion? Cheers - Neil G NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender has the authority to issue and specifically states them to be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.

8 8

Re: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes
by neil gardner 27 May '04

27 May '04

>>> Juha Saarinen <juha(a)saarinen.org> 28/05/2004 2:06:47 p.m. >>> You're kidding right? We have T&Cs that speak of "best effort service" with no guarantee as to any aspect of delivery. I kid not... This quote is taken (almost at Random) from Paradise... "JetStart Traffic is calculated depending on the location of the site the traffic is coming from or going to. Any traffic to or from New Zealand sites (national traffic) is charged at 1/10th of the normal traffic charge, while traffic to or from a site outside New Zealand (international traffic) is charged at the full traffic rate." That tells me (in my mind) that traffic from a site in New Zealand will be charged at 1/10th of the normal rate. No normal home user should be expected to understand that just because of a spat between 2 National ISPs, Traffic from me here in Chch to a server in Wellington might go via Sydney and therefore be classed as International Traffic. Interestingly, as Paradise have that written right now, it doesn't matter. The way they have used the word "Site" in that context would clearly convey to a reasonable person that they mean the end server, not the last or most remote hop... So even if my traffic to and from Trademe goes via Timbuktu, the "Site" is Trademe, and it's a "New Zealand sites (national traffic)" (sic) Cheers - N. NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender has the authority to issue and specifically states them to be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.

3 2

RE: [nznog] Indian government plans Internet exchanges
by Regan Murphy 27 May '04

27 May '04

> Someone with some spare hands on their time needs to lobby > the government to make peering in NZ legislation. > > Although TNZ and TCNZ will be wearing a lot of the network > costs in terms of trunking traffic up and down the country, > they also have most of the customers - so I think that's fair > and justified. Yes it is good idea. So why not also make the Govt responsible for the trunking between peering sites as well? ISPs could still organise private peering for priority traffic in this scenario. -- Regan

3 2

RE: [nznog] Indian government plans Internet exchanges
by Gordon Smith 27 May '04

27 May '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Whitmore [mailto:lennon(a)orcon.net.nz] > Sent: Friday, 28 May 2004 12:33 p.m. > To: 'NZNOG Mailing List' > Subject: RE: [nznog] Indian government plans Internet exchanges > > > Why don't they just (like a lot of other people do), Advertise their > Auckland networks via APE only and their Wellington Networks > via WIX only. > Then they wouldn't be providing transit down the country. > > Advertising the Entire Clear Network via APE and the Entire > Clear Networks > via WIX is the problem. > Thanks > Craig > The use of BGP communities would help solve their problems regarding routing ingress and egress points. Pity it isn't more widely used..... Transits can be filtered by community tag within an AS, and most major vendors support using bgp communities in this way

1 0

Indian government plans Internet exchanges
by Andy Linton 27 May '04

27 May '04

This URL points to the incoming Indian governments 10 point agenda form IT - http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2004/104052609.asp In particular, see point 5: 5. Plan to connect all ISPs in India to a national internet exchange in order to achieve efficient internet traffic routing, cost reduction and improve quality of service for the Internet users in India. Four Internet exchanges points to be fully operationalised. Small and big ISPs to route their traffic through this exchange to ensure the security of domestic traffic. Currently, 25 ISPs are connected. ---- Note the reasons for doing this especially "improve quality of service for the Internet users".

5 4