- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

International Internet Charging Regimes... feedback on comments received (long)
by Frank March 13 Apr '00

13 Apr '00

I am providing here a summary of the comments received. Thank you for the feedback, which has been of a very high standard and very helpful. In this summary I have edited comments and in some cases combined them with others and précised. I take full responsibility for any misrepresented or ignored and mangled points that result and further comments and corrections are welcome. I have been asked for more information, especially about the background to the Australian position. My apologies for not giving this before. The ICAIS Task Force web site is at http://www.apii.or.kr/telwg/ICAIS/ICAIS-frame.html Included on the site is a paper outlining Australian objectives for the project. Unfortunately there is little 'hard data' on the site other then the reports of the study group itself. There is a paper on Internet traffic measurement by Nevil Brownlee. My summary of feedback follows. The draft comment was circulated to the New Zealand Network Operators emailing list (nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz) and to the members of the Internet Society of New Zealand (ISOCNZ, isocnz-members(a)isocnz.org.nz). These two groups encompass most, if not all, of the technically knowledgeable people in New Zealand dealing with TCP/IP issues and many others who are concerned with policy development in the Internet area. The draft was also passed by subscribers to one or other list to Australian commentators. A total of 11 people have returned comments so far, some of whom are experts in TCP/IP matters and measurement of Internet traffic flows. Some comments were privately to me, others were broadcast to the NZNOG list and elicited further online comment and discussion. Overall there has been support for the draft, with some specific criticism of para 11 which needs redrafting and clarification. In general the New Zealand position statement seems to have the support of at least the technical community. Points made supportive of the draft include: (i) International traffic is carried over symmetric pipes but traffic flows are usually in fact highly asymmetric. Pipes are usually sized to accommodate flows in one direction (in New Zealand's case, inwards) so that the much smaller back-flows are often essentially free to the circuit provider. (ii) Much traffic between non-US countries crosses the US networks and the cost is negotiated as part of inter-provider agreements. We are smaller than the US providers and need them more than they need us. There's nothing in principle stopping an NZ ISP negotiating with a US ISP an arrangement where the US ISP paid for US traffic crossing the international link. (iii) We do not want governments imposing a regime which would force ISPs to do PTT-style charging for voice calls over the Internet - that would severely limit the development of voice, video, multimedia, etc. technologies over the Internet. (iv) The number of services running across the PSTN is limited so it is relatively straightforward to make an agreement on interconnect. By comparison, on the Internet subscribers of the network are free to invent their own services without the interconnecting networks knowing anything about them. Hence any simplistic (and non-zero-settlement) charging regime imposed by network operators and based on aggregate traffic measurement is doomed to failure. For example, a charging scheme that attributed value to volume of traffic would place all the value in the content consumer - content supplier relationship with the content supplier (since there would be a net traffic volume imbalance in the direction supplier -> consumer). (v) The current Southern Cross project is an example of how various telecommunication companies will invest, regardless of (potentially) unfavourable interconnection arrangements. Over five years, Telecom's international Internet traffic carriage has fallen from 98% to 22% highlighting that significant other Service Providers have chosen to implement large bandwidth provisions regardless of the supposed "unfair" interconnection agreements. NZ's position should be to actively argue that the current arrangements should not be changed rather than passively opt for the status quo. (vi) Unless interconnect agreements mandate a flat 50% share of the costs, the asymmetry of the traffic means that non-US connectors would still pay the lions share. (vii) Since 90% of the end user cost is attributed to local access cost issues can be addressed locally without recourse to expensive international quango's. There were no comments strongly opposed to the draft but there were some cautionary comments and a number of questions. My interpolated comments are in parentheses. (viii) There was some surprise expressed at the high proportion of the cost to the end user being attributed to the local loop quoted in my initial commentary. (It should be noted that this is over the APEC area and in NZ's case is likely to be lower but the actual figure is not known for NZ). It was also pointed out that the proportion of the international traffic cost to the ISP well be much higher than for an end user since they are paying a smaller part of the cost of the local loop. Very late in the preparation of this commentary, Neil James provided the following figures for Otago University: LAN (local loop) 57%; National 4%; International 39%. (These figures are probably a reasonable attribution of the costs faced by a NZ-based ISP rather than an end user, if so, costs to end users in NZ for international connectivity are substantially higher than the 3% measured for the APEC area as a whole. This reflects the relatively lower overall local loop cost in NZ than is the case for the APEC area as a whole.) (ix) Whether the current situation has limited growth or not is surely only part of the equation. The other part of the equation must be 'are we paying a fair proportion of the costs?'. (x) How much hosting business is lost to overseas hosting companies because of the international traffic costs? Some government departments even host sites overseas. And a similar point made by another commentator: NZ ISPs are effectively subsidising anyone outside NZ who views a website hosted by them. There is anecdotal evidence that NZ ISPs are reluctant to host popular websites for this reason. Ihug, for example, finds it cheaper to host their clients' websites on a server in the US. (xi) From a national perspective, we are subsidising consumers in another nation. It would be interesting to compare the costs of hosting an identical website in NZ and the US and see whether the traffic charges are significant in the NZ case. (xii) There were a number of comments to the effect that measurement of traffic flows is both possible and useful, noting that para 11 of the draft is misleading on this point. (Clearly this paragraph needs redrafting to ensure accuracy and clarity.) (xiii) The statement in the draft that value of Internet use is not measurable just in terms of traffic flows is a subjective, value-laden statement, which makes it harder to defend. It should be amended to the effect that the Internet allows much more varied styles of remote interaction than voice telephony, which greatly enhances the ability for groups of people to work together despite being located in different economies. (xiv) VOIP certainly raises new issues. If NZ typically provides the gateway into the an IP pipe used for VoIP from US to NZ for US callers clearly we would want the US to pay a portion. Despite the problem of measurement one has now to wonder just how we can agree on appropriate sharing of costs. Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

International Internet Charging Regimes... Draft NZ Government po sition (comments sought)
by Frank March 11 Apr '00

11 Apr '00

To all NZNOG subscribers & ISOCNZ members: This is pretty long so if you or, more particularly, your organisation have no interest at all in international Internet connection costs please pass by. Last year I circulated some information to NZNOG about an APEC TEL study on Internet costs, especially the costs of connection across the Pacific (the concern being that non-US Internet users and ISPs are subsidising US users and ISPs). This is stated to be because, unlike telephone charging, where the costs are taken up by the teleco whose subscriber originates the call, non-US ISPs have to rent circuits and thus pay for all traffic irrespective of origin. The study is now known as ICAIS (for: International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services). An interim report has been prepared for the ICAIS Task Force. The report concludes inter alia that about 90% of the costs of Internet connection for Pacific Rim countries is due to the local loop, about 7% is national backbone and a mere 3% is due to international link costs (however the consultants who wrote the report consider this is still considered sufficient to justify further work). The Task Force is now preparing a report for the APEC TEL Ministerial meeting which is scheduled for May. It would be fair to say that there is much disagreement between US and Canada on the one hand and just about everyone else on the other. Having set the ball in motion, Singapore has been happy to let the Australian's carry the torch for reform and Japan, the China and Chinese Taipei, Korea have all agreed with their position. The two positions can be briefly summarised as: the reformers claim that Internet development is being held back unfairly because everyone else subsidises the US costs of connectivity. The opposing viewpoint (and one that I personally hold to) is that there is no evidence of slow take up in NZ and Australia (both are in the top 10 countries in terms of Internet use, along with similarly 'disadvantaged' nations such as Finland, Sweden etc). Most of the rest of the OECD group come well behind but, of course, well ahead of the 2nd and 3rd world. Slow take up in Asia is due to other factors, especially local connection costs and heavily regulated markets. *************** The issue I want to raise here is: does the NZ Internet/ISP industry perceive there to be a problem over this issue? I have asked this question on the NZNOG list at least twice before and received essentially no feedback. I have taken this to mean that there is not an issue for NZ generally, and the ISPs in particular. ************** For this reason, NZ has not advanced any particular position within the APEC TEL but tends to side with the US and Canada. Our position is quite different from that of Australia on this issue (although I cannot see how they can seriously argue evidence of market failure in their case). The brief paper below sets out a draft NZ statement for the Ministerial meeting. I would be interested in any feedback at all (needs to be within a few days, say Friday 14 April). We intend to snail mail a paper version to CEOs of ISPs and other organisations but quick comment from the more technical community would be helpful before we undertake that task. I would emphasise that the NZ position is far from fixed at this point and no statement has yet been made internationally. It may be helpful to quote para 5.1.2 from the draft report as we think this fully encompasses the NZ position (there is a reference to this statement in para 6 below.) <para 5.1.2 draft report> 5.1.2 -- Other economies consider that international charging arrangements are only one element in the total costs and value exchange of international Internet interconnection. They note that these international charging arrangements have not been shown to be a significant factor in overall costs, and that these arrangements have produced rapidly falling bandwidth prices. They note the Internet is a new, dynamic industry where business models are developing rapidly in response to market conditions. They see the Internet as fundamentally different from PSTN networks, note that traffic flows can not be used to infer which party receives the benefit from such traffic, and believe government mandated allocation of costs based on traffic flows potentially detrimental to the growth and functioning of the Internet. They believe the current international Internet market to be operating in a competitive market and note that high prices for consumers appear to be associated with the level of competition and pricing for consumer Internet connection in domestic markets. Therefore, consistent with APEC's APII Principles, they believe there is no basis for government intervention at this time, and that responses to these commercial arrangements will be worked out most quickly if the Internet market is left unhampered. " </para 5.1.2 draft report> I have included the full draft even though it makes reference to parts of the Task Force report that you will not have seen... unfortunately as a draft, the Task Force report is confidential. I would be very interested in any comments on paras 10 & 11. DRAFT NEW ZEALAND POSITION ON ICAIS (for possible circulation to the ICAIS Task Force) 1 New Zealand has not taken an active role in debate at Task Force meetings, largely because the International Internet charging regime has not been drawn to the government's attention by New Zealand industry players or users as a matter of concern. Therefore, there has not been a mandate for New Zealand's TEL delegation to put forward substantive views on this. 2 Nonetheless, we have followed the discussions closely and wish to make some comments as an input to the process of finalising a TEL position for the TELMIN4 meeting in May. 3 We agree that the final report to Ministers should be as brief as possible, consistent with enabling them to appreciate the range of views held by member economies, and the valuable work undertaken by the consultants. Any consideration of this issue also should take account of the fact that the consultants report indicates that international connectivity makes up a very small proportion of the total costs involved in Internet traffic. 4 Some comment has been made about the current funding arrangements hindering the growth of the Internet. Although we do not know what the optimum growth of the Internet might be, there seems little if any evidence of market failure to date. 5 Even if that were the case, there are many other factors which impact on growth and take-up of Internet services, other than the costs of the international element of carriage. Important among these are: the level of the economy's domestic telecommunications market liberalisation and competition, foreign investment restrictions, the effect of local as well as international cost/price structures on the actual cost to end-users, the impact of compliance/regulatory requirements on the development and availability of the Internet, roll-out of domestic infrastructures and the availability of bandwidth, the amount of local Internet content, consumer confidence in the case of e-commerce, open market access for ISPs. 6 We have not entered the debate over the text on what is agreed or not: there are already plenty of economies putting forward their views on this: we would, however, support the US wording for para 5.1.2 (e-mail of 8 April). 7 As far as the conclusion of the report is concerned, we are not convinced that a case has been made for substantive recommendations in terms of the requirement to study and if appropriate to make recommendations on the issue. We are quite attracted by the Canadian paper (TELWG/21/ICAIS/12), as a useful way forward, except for the use of the rather subjective term "affordable" in relation to the cost of internet access. 8 The applicability of any recommendations must also be borne in mind, recognising APEC's voluntary nature. Any recommendations which are arrived at would not have mandatory force. 9 However, we accept that the majority of participants seem to want to have recommendations to put to Ministers who, in turn, are likely to be expecting something concrete to discuss at TELMIN4. 10 The impact of Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) needs to be taken into account. At this stage of technical development and with the declining relevance of ITU SG3 recommendations on international telecommunications traffic (accounting rates), we would not want to see any arrangements that imposed unjustified compliance costs or that endeavoured to mandate negotiations that would subject Internet traffic to similar costing regimes as voice telephony (for these reasons, New Zealand has not supported active ITU-T involvement in Internet charging arrangements either). 11 The task group must avoid any outcomes where the cost of measurement or monitoring exceeds the cost/value involved. Unlike telephony, the Internet is not measurable in terms of traffic flows: the flows themselves do not indicate where the value of traffic lies, even if you could measure it. 12 Looking at the recommendations as they stand in the latest draft report, we would prefer that section 6.1 (Recommended international charging arrangements for Internet services) be deleted. If it is to stay, recommendations 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 should be prefaced by the words "Where bilaterally agreed". It is accepted that this would leave unsaid the approach to be taken if- as seems probable in many cases- the 2 parties cannot agree. 13 In general, we could support the suggested APEC principles (section 6.2), except that 6.2.5 (a) should be amended to read "efficient market principles", rather than "fair market principles". 14 Any reference to further TEL work in this area should also include the need to continue a strong focus on the points raised in our paragraph 5 above that need to be addressed as an integral part of Internet development. The current recommendation 6.3.1 tends to imply that there is a problem to be addressed, and we are not convinced this is appropriate. Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 6

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 05 Apr '00

05 Apr '00

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group The New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG) has neither a king, a president nor a formal membership. At present it consists of the subscribers to this mailing list, which anyone is free to join. At last count the list had just over 130 subscribers, with the count growing slightly each month. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by an employee of Telecom NZ Ltd. Neither of these organisations (nor the administrator) is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 4. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 5. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 6. Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 7. Postings of a political, philosophical or legal nature are discouraged. 8. Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. Attachments should not be sent to the list. To present a document, a suitable URL may be referred to. For documents of general interest, the use of proprietary file formats is discouraged. 9. Breaches of list etiquette should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not result in complaints being sent to the list. Mailing List Archives A full archive is available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/nznog/ To search the archive, see http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/search.html (and remember to select nznog). Subscribing to the List To subscribe to the NZNOG list, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz, where the body of the message reads subscribe nznog There are at present no restrictions on who may subscribe to the list, or even on who may post to the list. Digest Mailing List If you don't wish to receive postings as they are sent, you can instead subscribe to the nznog-digest mailiing list, on which all postings are sent out in a single "digest" every couple of days. Other Activities NZNOG does not at present have other regular activities than this mailing list, though some Auckland subscribers have been known to meet over beer. Donald Neal NZNOG Mailing List Owner/Administrator/Muggins --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

[John.Hine@MCS.VUW.AC.NZ: Registry Review]
by Joe Abley 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

Forwarded on behalf of JH, since it seems his earlier message did not make it to the nznog list (at least, I can't find it in the archives). ----- Forwarded message from John Hine <John.Hine(a)MCS.VUW.AC.NZ> ----- At its meeting on Friday, 31 March, the Council of ISOCNZ approved the terms of reference and working plan for a review of the DNS Registry/Registrar framework for the .nz ccTLD. The working group will report to the ISOCNZ AGM currently scheduled for 23 June. The background, full terms of reference and timetable for this review will be found at the review web site: http://www.isocnz.org.nz/consult/. At this site you will also be able to subscribe to a separate mailing list for the discussion of this issue. The site also contains instructions for making submissions, and will, in due course, hold the submissions themselves. This review will establish policy that will determine the framework for the relationships between the registry, registrars and name holders within .nz for the medium term future. Consequently it will impact on ISPs, name registrars, name holders and the registry. If you are one of these, this review may impact the type of service you will receive or be able to offer. Please take an active part in the review process. John H. Hine Working Group Chair ----- End forwarded message ----- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: www.i4free.co.nz - Forwarded
by Donald Neal 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

From: "Michael Baxter" <Michael_Baxter(a)utopia.co.nz> To: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: Re: www.i4free.co.nz Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:39:50 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Yesterday I could call up www.i4free.co.nz using Ihug - BUT - not the joinup/subscribe page (?) Today, cannot call up www.i4free.co.nz at all using Ihug. Regards Michael Baxter (Manager) Utopia (www.utopia.co.nz) P.O. Box 84-217 Michael_Baxter(a)utopia.co.nz Westgate, Auckland +64 25 289 3532 New Zealand Member, International Webmasters Association http://iwanet.org The information contained in this document is confidential. Attachments are (c) Baxter Innovations All prices are in NZ$ and exclude GST --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

NZ MBONE Page
by James Tyson 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

I have set up a quick page about the proposed NZ MBONE, If anyone has any related links for me then please send them my way. Also, if anyone feels like writing any white-papers about the proposed architecute, or anything else to do with this, then please, go ahead and do so, and forward to me. I will make sure that it get's posted and commented on. The URL is http://mbone.samizdat.co.nz/ James Tyson --- Samizdat New Media Solutions --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

NZ MBONE
by James Tyson 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

Just one more thing. When I talk about where to put this router I am talking about Auckland, as most ISP's core networks are in Auckland and they are more likely to be equiped to deal with the increased traffic demands in Auckland. Once we have a fair idea of the bandwidth being used by it then we can probably ask for someone to supply some inter-city bandwidth. Cheers. James Tyson --- Samizdat New Media Solutions --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

NZ MBONE
by James Tyson 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

Okay, having talked to Josh in private email, etc, I have come to the following conclusions: Can someone from Citylink email me about putting Roger's router in the citylink rack, and about a few other management things. Can Roger email me about the router so that we can sort out exactly what we are going to need, etc. I am going to be talking to various people over the next few days about various ways of landing the tunnel in NZ - and mostly who wants to put up bandwidth for it, so if your David Robb or Joe Abley then I would expect that you will get a call from me shortly. Can people also email me nominations for who you would trust to maintain the router (which I don't expect to be very complicated or time consuming), and next monday I will stop taking nominations and put a web-based polling system up to decide who gets chosen. If anyone has any questions then fire me off an email. I don't want to piss anyone off, but it would appear that no one wants to take responsiblity for getting this going - so I decided to. Cheers. James Tyson --- Samizdat New Media Solutions --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

RE: [isocnz-l]Re: MBONE-less
by jabley＠automagic.org 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

I am happy to do this, at least for a trial period (say six months or so). I can house a loaner mbone termination router within 100M range of the APE. ----Original Message----- >From: Josh Bailey <joshbailey(a)lucent.com> >To: David Robb <david.robb(a)staff.ihug.co.nz> >Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz; isocnz-l(a)isocnz.org.nz >Subject: [isocnz-l]Re: MBONE-less >Reply-To: isocnz-l(a)isocnz.org.nz >Date: Tuesday, 4 April 2000 08:53 > >On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, David Robb wrote: > >> *raises hand* I'm interested. > >I should qualify what I meant by serious interest, before you be so kind >as to volunteer. :-) > >The last proposal that was "floating around" was for us to land the tunnel >on a router housed somewhere. The person administering/housing that router >would of course have to provide bandwidth for it, and configure GRE >tunnels to other ISPs that might want "downstream" feeds. IOW, there is >money and administrative overhead involved. > >-- >Josh Bailey (joshbailey(a)lucent.com) "Josh is... at large" -- F.W. > > >_______________________________________________ >go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/isocnz-l >for subscription/unsubscription information. > >

1 0

Testimony of Richard Pethia; Director, CERT Centers before a US S enate committee
by Frank March 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

This is the second posting I have made to this list of information related to security issues affecting the Internet. The information is sourced from a email list of the GOVIS information security forum which is convened by Mike Pearson of the Ministry of Fisheries. Unless there is objection that the information is off-topic or inappropriate I shall continue to make such postings when it seems to me that the information is of potential interest to members of the nznog. Happy to receive comments direct if people prefer not to clog the list with feedback. Full report at: http://www.cert.org/congressional_testimony/Pethia_testimony_Mar28-2000.html <extract> The recently publicized rash of attacks on Internet e-commerce sites reminds us once again of the fragility of many sites on the Internet and of our ongoing need to improve our ability to assure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of our data and systems operations. While it is important to react to crisis situations when they occur, it is just as important to recognize that cyber defense is a long-term problem. The Internet and other forms of communication systems will continue to grow and interconnect. More and more people and organizations will conduct business and become otherwise dependent on these networks. More and more of these organizations and individuals will lack the detailed technical knowledge and skill that is required to effectively protect systems today. More and more attackers will look for ways to take advantage of the assets of others or to cause disruption and damage for personal or political gain. The network and computer technology will evolve and the attack technology will evolve along with it. Many information assurance solutions that work today will not work tomorrow. </extract> Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2