On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Simon Garner wrote:

Well that sucks, and explains why I was seeing 700+ pings and 50%+ loss to TC hosts this morning. I note however that pings have gone back down to 10ms this afternoon and appear to be routing through APE again. Have they changed their minds already?

Nope - as I outlined earlier, we treated it as damage and routed around it. Technology triumphs over stupidity! Huzzah! Oh yeah, I should mention - since we don't buy international connectvity any more, we have been offered the option of BUYING domestic-only peering from TelstraClear for the meager sum of $25 per 64Kbits/sec per month. We've got 100Mbits/sec to APE, so that means we'll only be charged $40,000/month for TelstraClear to get one of their techs to add a "neighbour a.b.c.d" line to their router so that we (and TC) can use the links that we both already have in place! Amazing! I mean, ICONZ manages to domestically peer over APE at 100Mbits/sec with other ISPs for FREE - and some of those ISPs are orders of magnitude smaller than us, with a mere fraction of the resources of TelstraClear. You'd think TC could peer quite casually with all comers for free, since "Bobs Bait Shop and ISP" can certainly manage it. But NO! $40K/month! Cheap at half the price! That'll buy the chimp LOTS of bananas, and maybe even an old tyre on a rope for swinging around! Ook ook, JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff.

Please don't do that, remember that once apon a time many people on the list worked as a helpdesk person and that would just be mean. Remembering it's not the tekky on the other side of the phones fault and most of the time people high up wont even know what happening :) Barry DISCLAIMER ---------- These are my thoughts and mine only, this is a personal mail and should be treated as one. -----Original Message----- From: nznog(a)neilnz.com [mailto:nznog(a)neilnz.com] Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 6:26 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear Obvious answer - vote with feet (or threats of stampedes) Everyone on here that works somewhere that uses TelstraClear or Iconz, phone TelstraClear, every day and complain about non specific network wierdness between the two ISPs. Ask why they don't peer anymore. Repeat. 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? Cheers - N. -----Original Message----- From: J S Russell [mailto:jsr(a)jsr.com] Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 3:57 p.m. To: Simon Garner Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Simon Garner wrote:

Well that sucks, and explains why I was seeing 700+ pings and 50%+ loss to TC hosts this morning. I note however that pings have gone back down to 10ms this afternoon and appear to be routing through APE again. Have they changed their minds already?

Nope - as I outlined earlier, we treated it as damage and routed around it. Technology triumphs over stupidity! Huzzah! Oh yeah, I should mention - since we don't buy international connectvity any more, we have been offered the option of BUYING domestic-only peering from TelstraClear for the meager sum of $25 per 64Kbits/sec per month. We've got 100Mbits/sec to APE, so that means we'll only be charged $40,000/month for TelstraClear to get one of their techs to add a "neighbour a.b.c.d" line to their router so that we (and TC) can use the links that we both already have in place! Amazing! I mean, ICONZ manages to domestically peer over APE at 100Mbits/sec with other ISPs for FREE - and some of those ISPs are orders of magnitude smaller than us, with a mere fraction of the resources of TelstraClear. You'd think TC could peer quite casually with all comers for free, since "Bobs Bait Shop and ISP" can certainly manage it. But NO! $40K/month! Cheap at half the price! That'll buy the chimp LOTS of bananas, and maybe even an old tyre on a rope for swinging around! Ook ook, JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff. _______________________________________________ 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

Don't you work on telstraclear's helpdesk barry? -----Original Message----- From: Barry Murphy [mailto:barry(a)unix.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 6:48 p.m. To: neil(a)neilnz.com; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear Please don't do that, remember that once apon a time many people on the list worked as a helpdesk person and that would just be mean. Remembering it's not the tekky on the other side of the phones fault and most of the time people high up wont even know what happening :) Barry DISCLAIMER ---------- These are my thoughts and mine only, this is a personal mail and should be treated as one. -----Original Message----- From: nznog(a)neilnz.com [mailto:nznog(a)neilnz.com] Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 6:26 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear Obvious answer - vote with feet (or threats of stampedes) Everyone on here that works somewhere that uses TelstraClear or Iconz, phone TelstraClear, every day and complain about non specific network wierdness between the two ISPs. Ask why they don't peer anymore. Repeat. 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? Cheers - N. -----Original Message----- From: J S Russell [mailto:jsr(a)jsr.com] Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 3:57 p.m. To: Simon Garner Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Simon Garner wrote:

Well that sucks, and explains why I was seeing 700+ pings and 50%+ loss to TC hosts this morning. I note however that pings have gone back down to 10ms this afternoon and appear to be routing through APE again. Have they changed their minds already?

Nope - as I outlined earlier, we treated it as damage and routed around it. Technology triumphs over stupidity! Huzzah! Oh yeah, I should mention - since we don't buy international connectvity any more, we have been offered the option of BUYING domestic-only peering from TelstraClear for the meager sum of $25 per 64Kbits/sec per month. We've got 100Mbits/sec to APE, so that means we'll only be charged $40,000/month for TelstraClear to get one of their techs to add a "neighbour a.b.c.d" line to their router so that we (and TC) can use the links that we both already have in place! Amazing! I mean, ICONZ manages to domestically peer over APE at 100Mbits/sec with other ISPs for FREE - and some of those ISPs are orders of magnitude smaller than us, with a mere fraction of the resources of TelstraClear. You'd think TC could peer quite casually with all comers for free, since "Bobs Bait Shop and ISP" can certainly manage it. But NO! $40K/month! Cheap at half the price! That'll buy the chimp LOTS of bananas, and maybe even an old tyre on a rope for swinging around! Ook ook, JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff. _______________________________________________ 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

Ahh! Yes, that might be the one ;) Barry, perhaps you can point everyone in the right direction, in terms of who to contact to get this whole mess sorted out. I think the APE would be a whole lot more efficent, if everyone connected to it wasn't given a choice on who they peer with. It makes sence, if you connect to the APE, peer with everyone, or don't connect :) -----Original Message----- From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 7:19 p.m. To: Craig Spiers Cc: 'Barry Murphy'; neil(a)neilnz.com; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear Craig Spiers wrote:

Don't you work on telstraclear's helpdesk barry?

I thought Barry was promoted to the Domestic Peering Termination Unit? -- Juha

I am VERY DISAPPOINTED by TelstraClear - even Telecom doesn't pull this kind of stunt.

Actually. I had a closed-door meeting with people whom I will not name at Telecom whilst doing my stint at Telecom IP & Data after opening up xtra's network to domestic BGP peering shortly after my arrival there. The especially interesting thing is that you mention the word buffoon, which is exactly why the subject came up in the first place. There was a concern that by not signing peering contracts with other domestic networks we were opening the organisation up to potential litigation. It would appear that we won that argument, not that I recall how - I have never been a particularly good orator. Bonsior! --- James Tyson Director, Giant Robot Ltd http://www.giantrobot.co.nz/

On 25 Nov 2003, at 08:19, Steve Withers wrote:

They also refuse to peer with AT&T anymore. To be fair, AT&T in the US treated TC the same way TC is treating ICONZ......sad to say.

The crux of the matter is that some network operators in New Zealand have started thinking about peering as a business issue rather than a technical one. This is nothing new in the context of the whole network, and it's not unknown within NZ either -- how many small ISPs were ever able to do zero-settlement peering with 4648? The question of whether the business decision in question is the right one is really a matter for TCL and their owners. But if you assume for a second that as a business decision it makes sense, then all TCL are doing is what they are supposed to be doing as a commercial company -- trying to maximise their profits. They're not a government department, and they're not a charity.

Telstra in Australia control the major peering point(s) and they charge by the MB for traffic - to everyone.

This might have been kind of true, once, almost, but it's not really an accurate statement now. There are numerous other peering facilities in major centres all round Australia where you can interconnect with substantial chunks of the Australian Internet. If the general peering situation in New Zealand has been less messed up than Australia, though, then that's mainly due to CLEAR (and, to some extent, Telstra NZ) for providing competition to Telecom early in the game and effectively avoiding the single-carrier dominance that happened for so long over the ditch. Also remember that it was people working at CLEAR who came up with the APE in the first place, and built it with assistance from their friends at Citylink. CLEAR and Plain were the first people to peer there. If CLEAR and Telstra NZ had not been willing to peer with people for so long at the APE, it's entirely possible that it would never have reached critical mass, and might not have grown to the size it is today.

...

I, and the ICONZ engineering staff, are currently treating this as damage and looking for a nice way to route around it.

This is absolutely the right approach. Wailing and gnashing of teeth is not going to make anything better. Here are some ideas, in no particular order: 1. Become a customer of TelstraClear. 2. Become a customer of someone who peers with TelstraClear (maybe just pay to receive 4768, 9901, 7714, 4763 and friends, and for your routes to be propagated to those ASes) 3. Become a customer of someone who is a customer of TelstraClear (maybe as above). 4. Peer with everybody you can at the APE and the WIX to maximise the amount of traffic you can send and receive without per-traffic cost, to mitigate the cost of reaching an exchange (Auckland) or the exchange reaching you (Wellington). 5. If you are able to interconnect with other networks in other innovative/cheap ways, do that. Build an exchange point. Drop a bit of cat5 down a riser to the ISP on the next floor. Sling a radio shot between rooftops. Negotiate for an extra pair of fibres across town from whomever is selling you dark fibre, and peer with the person on the other end of it. TelstraClear are presumably expecting that enough people do (1) that they win, especially if it means these peoplle stop being customers of Sprint, or Global Crossing, or someone else competing for international transit. The success of the APE and the WIX notwithstanding, maybe people have been lulled into not doing enough of (4) and (5), and have been relying too much on one or two peering sessions with big networks to shift their local packets locally. Maybe people should do more of (4) and (5). (4) and (5) are fun :-)

If any company - telecoms, toilet paper or toast - decides to behave in an amoral way, then society must impose the 'public good' on them....just as we do on any sociopathic person....or in this case, a sociopathic entity.

I think you're confusing amorality with immorality. Joe

J S Russell wrote:

Well, excellent! Mathew, we still do buy stuff from you - a wide variety of intercity connections, in fact! I'll tell the guys in the NOC to contact our account manager, quote you, and we'll get this peering thing sorted out straight away! Updates on this will be posted to NZNOG.

Quick question: has the peering between ICONZ and Telstra been re-established? traceroute to idg.co.nz (210.48.100.10), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 router (192.168.1.254) 1.288 ms 1.620 ms 1.114 ms 2 203-79-82-254.adsl-wns.paradise.net.nz (203.79.82.254) 8.901 ms 11.571 ms 10.413 ms 3 192.168.253.225 (192.168.253.225) 19.100 ms 21.310 ms 18.780 ms 4 kelly.ipnet2.paradise.net.nz (203.96.155.158) 22.265 ms 27.322 ms 24.449 ms 5 fa7-0.bertha.paradise.net.nz (203.96.152.232) 20.016 ms 22.552 ms 20.084 ms 6 g1-0-1042.u21.tar.telstraclear.net (203.98.23.41) 22.353 ms 42.694 ms 25.871 ms 7 g9-0.1041.u12.brh.telstraclear.net (203.98.21.37) 36.288 ms 31.624 ms 37.338 ms 8 iconz1.ape.net.nz (192.203.154.44) 32.153 ms 31.474 ms 36.104 ms 9 cr-01a.akl.iconz.net (210.185.0.1) 36.087 ms 33.571 ms 34.857 ms 10 f2-0-1-gw2.akl.iconz.net.nz (210.185.1.2) 35.425 ms 33.518 ms 36.061 ms 11 e0-0.core3.akl.iconz.net.nz (202.14.100.220) 37.672 ms 42.279 ms 37.328 ms 12 210.48.113.34 (210.48.113.34) 37.750 ms 36.680 ms 36.112 ms 13 www.idg.co.nz (210.48.100.10) 34.936 ms 34.184 ms 33.694 ms -- Juha

Quick question: has the peering between ICONZ and Telstra been re-established?

No, peering between ICONZ and TC at the APE and WIX is still down. At about 4-5pm yesterday a temporary solution was put in place, how temporary..... remains to be seen. We organised a "go between" to carry TC and ICONZ routes into the respective networks. Advertised routes have the nexthop set to the existing TC and ICONZ APE IP addresses. A rather pointless exercise in the end as traffic is still going via the same physical paths. All that was accomplished by the TC "strategically shaved chimp" in the end was to screw some very straight forward routing up and dick their own customers around. A big thanks needs to go out to the techs who helped out, I won't name names at this time, but you guys know who you are and I owe you all big time. Cheers The above is my opinion and not of the company I work for, blah blah etc and so forth. -----Original Message----- From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:58 AM To: J S Russell Cc: NZ NOG Subject: Re: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear J S Russell wrote:

Well, excellent! Mathew, we still do buy stuff from you - a wide variety of intercity connections, in fact! I'll tell the guys in the NOC to contact our account manager, quote you, and we'll get this peering thing sorted out straight away! Updates on this will be posted

to NZNOG.

Quick question: has the peering between ICONZ and Telstra been re-established? traceroute to idg.co.nz (210.48.100.10), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 router (192.168.1.254) 1.288 ms 1.620 ms 1.114 ms 2 203-79-82-254.adsl-wns.paradise.net.nz (203.79.82.254) 8.901 ms 11.571 ms 10.413 ms 3 192.168.253.225 (192.168.253.225) 19.100 ms 21.310 ms 18.780 ms 4 kelly.ipnet2.paradise.net.nz (203.96.155.158) 22.265 ms 27.322 ms 24.449 ms 5 fa7-0.bertha.paradise.net.nz (203.96.152.232) 20.016 ms 22.552 ms 20.084 ms 6 g1-0-1042.u21.tar.telstraclear.net (203.98.23.41) 22.353 ms 42.694 ms 25.871 ms 7 g9-0.1041.u12.brh.telstraclear.net (203.98.21.37) 36.288 ms 31.624 ms 37.338 ms 8 iconz1.ape.net.nz (192.203.154.44) 32.153 ms 31.474 ms 36.104 ms 9 cr-01a.akl.iconz.net (210.185.0.1) 36.087 ms 33.571 ms 34.857 ms 10 f2-0-1-gw2.akl.iconz.net.nz (210.185.1.2) 35.425 ms 33.518 ms 36.061 ms 11 e0-0.core3.akl.iconz.net.nz (202.14.100.220) 37.672 ms 42.279 ms 37.328 ms 12 210.48.113.34 (210.48.113.34) 37.750 ms 36.680 ms 36.112 ms 13 www.idg.co.nz (210.48.100.10) 34.936 ms 34.184 ms 33.694 ms -- Juha _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, David Fox wrote:

http://www.mafia.org.nz/images/tui_peering.jpg

Class. :) I must say, I've calmed down hugely over the course of today. I guess the thing that irks me the most are the weasel words "it's policy, and you don't meet it." that I've been getting. The net effect of this policy is that both TelstraClear and ICONZ end up using expensive international bandwidth instead of cheap-as-chips domestic links to APE, and also both TelstraClear customers AND ICONZ customers having packet loss and latency on their connections increased. So this policy of TelstraClears is one which results in services costing more for everyone, INCLUDING TELSTRACLEAR, while _at the same time_ making service quality _worse_ for eveyone, INCLUDING TELSTRACLEAR CUSTOMERS. Not a policy I'd sign off, if it came across my desk. JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff.

I concur! www.ascent.co.nz etc; is available via ALTER.NET out Clear's International and back into ICONZ again, this just won't do :( hrmm Kind Regards Dan Clark Network Manager Scarfies.Net Ltd On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 13:39, Simon Garner wrote:

On Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:40 PM NZT, J S Russell wrote:

...

The net effect of this policy is that both TelstraClear and ICONZ end

up

...

using expensive international bandwidth instead of cheap-as-chips domestic links to APE, and also both TelstraClear customers AND ICONZ customers having packet loss and latency on their connections increased.

This seems to have started again... traffic is going down to the WIX and then back again!

Or is it just an outage?

-Simon

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Dan Clark wrote:

I concur! www.ascent.co.nz etc; is available via ALTER.NET out Clear's International and back into ICONZ again, this just won't do :( hrmm

Not for me on Paradise. -- Juha

OSPF got screwed by a wayward Juniper. All should be back now. Regards John Johnston Network Engineering ICONZ Phone: 09 977 3542 Mobile: 021 277 5692 -----Original Message----- From: Simon Garner [mailto:sgarner(a)expio.co.nz] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 1:50 PM To: 'NZ NOG' Subject: Re: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear On Friday, November 28, 2003 1:39 PM NZT, Simon Garner wrote:

This seems to have started again... traffic is going down to the WIX and then back again!

Nevermind, it appears to have been fixed already... -Simon _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Perhaps you should send your staff on an occasional training course. Foundry and Juniper ones would be a good start. -----Original Message----- From: J S Russell [mailto:jsr(a)jsr.com] Sent: Friday, 28 November 2003 8:30 p.m. To: Simon Garner Cc: 'NZ NOG' Subject: Re: [nznog] Irked with TelstraClear On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Simon Garner wrote:

This seems to have started again... traffic is going down to the WIX and then back again!

Or is it just an outage?

* ahem * - The latter, in this case - an attempt to raise an OSPF session from a Juniper M5 to the Foundry that handles our APE stuff caused the Foundry to lose it's mind - had to reboot it to clear it. Should have only been down for a while. That's the second time that Juniper + OSPF has resulted in Big Weirdness, for us. JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Joe Abley wrote:

The question of whether the business decision in question is the right one is really a matter for TCL and their owners. But if you assume for a second that as a business decision it makes sense, then all TCL are doing is what they are supposed to be doing as a commercial company -- trying to maximise their profits. They're not a government department, and they're not a charity.

This is bordering on OT, but as business conduct has direct bearing upon operational issues, here goes: I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of TCL customers, yours truly included, questioned the wisdom of said business decision that effectively locked them out of sites that in some cases they needed to access. JSR noted that the decision meant international traffic charges were incurred for some users, and how many helpdesk calls about "I'm a Clear/Paradise/Saturn/Netlink customer who need to access the Kiwibank site, but can't" were logged during the time? If the intention was to show how fragile the NZ Internet is, TCL certainly succeeded. I doubt it "maximised profits" however through that decision.

Also remember that it was people working at CLEAR who came up with the APE in the first place, and built it with assistance from their friends at Citylink. CLEAR and Plain were the first people to peer there.

If CLEAR and Telstra NZ had not been willing to peer with people for so long at the APE, it's entirely possible that it would never have reached critical mass, and might not have grown to the size it is today.

It strikes me that Clear and its techies (hi Joe!) had a very different idea as to the benefits of peering than Telstra has demonstrated recently. Certainly, the APE Web pages seem to say peering is mutually beneficial rather than a commercial resource to be milked, but maybe I'm showing my ignorance ... -- Juha

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Joe Abley wrote:

I suspect that any de-peering that is going on at TCL is based on business decisions which are not made by the geek crew. I don't think it's reasonable to attribute this stuff to those people.

That much is certain. It's not the TC NOC that's driving this one. Their opinion of it is more likely to be similar to my own. JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Juha Saarinen wrote:

Very true, but is it a fair competitive advantage to be able to disrupt other networks operations like that?

I should point out that it wasn't actually very disruptive to our operations. Everything still worked fine for us, after all - what we, and our customers, did get was many many calls and e-mails from TelstraClear customers, asking why latency was suddenly so high, or why they couldn't get to sites at all. We and our customers simply outlined that the problems they were experiencing were the result of a policy decision at TelstraClear, and advised them to contact their TC account manager. I spoke to one young man who was very upset because he was trying to install a server and couldn't get to ftp.nz.debian.org. I answered e-mail from a LOT of people who couldn't get to nzdating.com - I had no idea how popular THAT site was, but do now .. etc etc. The net result was TelstraClear end-users pissed off with TelstraClear, and ICONZ customers .. well, ALSO pissed off with TelstraClear. I'm getting all pissy again, just thinking about the absurdness of the situation. The engineer in me simply has great difficulty comprehending the deliberate introduction of inefficiencies or outright faults into a working system. That sort of thing HAS to come from nowhere else but management. :) JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff.

I think the geek crew at TCL today probably have about the same opinions as to what makes a good network good as we had back when we had our hands in the routers in AS4768. The geeks certainly know what makes a good network and nearly all (probably all in fact) would agree

Y'all, Joe wrote: that good domestic peering is an important part of what makes a good Internet network provider. So don't hold the "geeks" responsbible for this de-peering action.

I suspect that any de-peering that is going on at TCL is based on business decisions which are not made by the geek crew. I don't think it's reasonable to attribute this stuff to those people.

My guess at what the "business desicion" logic behind such a move is, is that TCL feel that they have a sufficient enough market share of the Internet customers in NZ such that giving other providers free domestic access to their customers does not recover any of the cost that they are/have outlayed to build a nationwide network, fibre backbone etc etc. I don't personally agree with this attitude, if it is true. In fact, in my opinion, it goes against the spirit of the Internet as a whole. However the reality of todays Internet is that people are trying to make money out of it now! I have recently approached XTRA about peering for the 5th time on my life and received the same answer - "no". Mind you the answer is always "no" until you ask :) What is XTRAs or Global Gateways' position on domestic peering? My current understanding is that TCL is just taking a stance that is already taken by others. ~benm #include

At 09:40 26/11/03, Ben Martel wrote:

I have recently approached XTRA about peering for the 5th time on my life and received the same answer - "no". Mind you the answer is always "no" until you ask :)

I don't have a record of you contacting me and I look after that side of things here but perhaps I did speak with you and not get your details down? I apologise if that's the case. Feel free to contact me off list and register your interest.

What is XTRAs or Global Gateways' position on domestic peering?

It's under review by Management. -- Ted Grenfell, Network Performance Manager, Xtra IT, Telecom NZ Limited Mob: +64 274 435 455; DDI: +64 9359 5854; Fax: +64 9309 2921 ICQ: 191891; MSN Messenger: ted.grenfell(a)team.xtra.co.nz Level 2 The Plaza, 2 Hereford St, Private Bag 92028, Auckland CBD This email is for the person(s) identified above, and is confidential to the sender and the person(s). No one else is authorised to use or disseminate this email or its contents. The email or its contents do not necessarily represent the views of Xtra Limited or Telecom. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Juha Saarinen wrote:

Ted Grenfell wrote:

...

...

What is XTRAs or Global Gateways' position on domestic peering?

It's under review by Management.

Humm, that sounds ominous.

Could you try to wrestle the policy review away from management and give it to the techies instead?

If everything were up to the techies, we'd have cheap, uncapped, highly-reliable broadband to every collection of houses in the country, and free peering for anyone with the resources to connect to a peering point. Sadly, because nothing is up to the techies until management have put their noses in, we have the current situation.

Steve and all, I can full well understand your stand and/or position with respect to not being willing to peer with AT&T given their ongoing business practices... Steve Withers wrote:

On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 14:57, J S Russell wrote:

...

I mean, ICONZ is a major NZ ISP, we have a nationwide network, multiple POPS, we're peered at APE, WIX, we've got a bunch of major web presences hosted with us .. if we don't meet TC's peering criteria, then WHO THE HELL DOES?

They also refuse to peer with AT&T anymore. To be fair, AT&T in the US treated TC the same way TC is treating ICONZ......sad to say.

I think Telecom are pretty much the only ones who they peer with...and everyone elese now has to sit behind Telecom to get their domestic traffic through to TC.

...

I am VERY DISAPPOINTED by TelstraClear - even Telecom doesn't pull this kind of stunt.

Telstra in Australia control the major peering point(s) and they charge by the MB for traffic - to everyone.

I suspect they are trying to narrow the peering field down to create a tiny 2-3 player market that can tacitly agree to charge for peering....without out actually putting anything in writing. All nods and winks andloud asides to 3rd parties.

...

I, and the ICONZ engineering staff, are currently treating this as damage and looking for a nice way to route around it.

I can't BELIEVE that some strategically shaved chimp at TelstraClear actually got PAID to make this decision. Way to build a business relationship, guys.

They have rejected the NZ Internet ethos.

Seeing it as a threat to the way things have always been done is a more or less accurate view.

They have no interest in the public good. They are an amoral corporation out to maximise profit.....at least I think that is the current excuse for being amoral.

This is why regulators with sharp teeth are essential.

If any company - telecoms, toilet paper or toast - decides to behave in an amoral way, then society must impose the 'public good' on them....just as we do on any sociopathic person....or in this case, a sociopathic entity.

A corporation.

-- Steve Withers

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

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