TC & T Possible Peering changes
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.
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 On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:29, neil gardner wrote:
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?
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:46, Don Gould wrote:
* Who are these ISPs that are using T&T for transit that shouldn't be?
A more fundamental question is "Are there any?" or possibly "Is anyone doing this deliberately?". My gut feeling is that the transit issues are just an red herring to cover a money grab.
* 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.
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Russell Fulton wrote:
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:46, Don Gould wrote:
* Who are these ISPs that are using T&T for transit that shouldn't be?
A more fundamental question is "Are there any?" or possibly "Is anyone doing this deliberately?". My gut feeling is that the transit issues are just an red herring to cover a money grab.
I agree that it is a red herring too ie they are trying to use this as an excuse to be able to generate more revenue. In a conversaion Juha and Paul had in here, the response to "Did they tell you where that data was destined? That is, did it go to non-TCL networks over TCL's links, or did it go to TCL's customers in Auckland?" was "no distinction was made". So the possibilities are a. TCL or TNZ are hauling traffic for networks that are not theirs. b. TCL or TNZ are hauling traffic for network that are theirs but in a different location. ie Packets for someone in Wgtn trying to get to a TCL server in Auckland goes in via WIX rather than via that person's ISP up to Auckland. I believe a simple change to their routing policy will sort out a. ie no real need to resort to this. If any such freeloaders exist, their freeride would have been over very quickly (once discovered). Of course all this makes their (TCL or TNZ) technical crew look incompetent. Having met a few of those people, I don't think that's true. We know who these people are. They have been at nznog meets, talking to us etc. I can quite understand why they are not posting as after all the decision for TCL not peering with ICONZ was a management decision and not a technical decision. It is perhaps b that they are trying to sort out now. Won't a routing change sort this out. Or perhaps they should consider it part of "good customer service" that their customer's data is delivered faster to their destination. I don't think it is a nor b. Just that they want ISPs to pay for the priveledge of getting to their customers. So ticket clipped at both ends. Their customer pays and the people who the customer wishes to reach pays too. What will be a shame is if ISPs lose customers because their service is considered a bit slower. Considering the helpdesker either trying to explain to a customer why it is slower or why their service is a bit more expensive! It just won't look good on those ISPs. So the only way is to target the big content providers who either host with TCL or TNZ (or not) and explain it to their IT people. Have them put pressure on TCL/TNZ. Also have them peer at APE or WIX to work around this problem. This is something we can do. Let's start with the list that Simon Lyall posted. If you have contacts in those organisations who will be able to help, go bend their ear, email them or something. Let's not waste time discussing this here. Rumours of this happening has been around and surfaced from time to time. So what we need to do now is act on it, work around it, reveal it for what it is to the public. Also journalists like Paul Brislen and Juha Saarinen can help by calling the bluff and refuse to have wool pulled over their eyes. Write articles asking why they refuse to clarify who it is or what is being abused?
* 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?" Is it an IX policy rather than the company's policy? If I were to buy you 3 pints of beer to haul my traffic from Wgtn to Auckland, should the IX interfere?
just my 2c worth regards lin
Lin Nah wrote:
Let's not waste time discussing this here. Rumours of this happening has been around and surfaced from time to time.
No rumours any more -- it's official TCL policy from now on.
Also journalists like Paul Brislen and Juha Saarinen can help by calling the bluff and refuse to have wool pulled over their eyes. Write articles asking why they refuse to clarify who it is or what is being abused?
Nobody's said anything about abuse yet, possibly because they know that that would raise more questions than it answered. I don't think either of has woolly eyes (well, Paul probably has, heard his leaving lunch lasted three hours) as it's a bit too obvious what our beloved telcos are doing. Besides, the esteemed NZNOG audience has educated us meticulously ;-) (Note to the corporate Gestapo officers monitoring the list: put away the meathooks and piano wire; no unauthorised press contact has occurred.) -- Juha
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
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
neil gardner wrote:
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?
You're kidding right? We have T&Cs that speak of "best effort service" with no guarantee as to any aspect of delivery. As long as what you are selling customers is "access" to said "best effort service", you are home dry as a provider. -- Juha
On Fri, 28 May 2004, neil gardner wrote:
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?
No, they'll change their terms and conditions so that National traffic is no longer free and is instead part of your quota. Telscom's new ADSL acounts already have this. ISPs can just have to give a bit of Notice to customers when they change. Here is an ISP's terms and conditions I prepared earlier :) Setions 1.26 of the following: http://www.iinet.net.au/products/termsandconditions.html and this page: http://www.iinet.net.au/products/broadband/bliinkzone.html -- Simon J. Lyall. | Very Busy | Mail: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
participants (8)
-
Barry Murphy -
Craig Spiers -
Don Gould -
Juha Saarinen -
Lin Nah -
neil gardner -
Russell Fulton -
Simon Lyall