RE: [nznog] FYI: Telecom changes the ADSL playing field again...
The question will be "Free" for how much longer? I have heard rumors that Citylink may have some new tricks up their sleeve (free to comment, open for blasting) to try and maintain free peering exchanges but it will ultimately come down to all the "other" isp's ensuring that they continue to peer at the exchanges. (note: MCI/Voyager just completing their own peering hub and peering arrangements are now being "reviewed") TCNZ are reviewing. TCL have already made their intentions clear. (pardon the pun :-) -----Original Message----- From: Richard Patterson [mailto:richard(a)helix.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2004 10:28 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] FYI: Telecom changes the ADSL playing field again... J S Russell wrote:
Doesn't this kinda defeat the whole point of having a seperate realm
for
JSG, then? That full-speed business was the only thing that made it interesting. If your connectivity to it is the same as your connectivity to any other normally-peered (Hi TelstraClear!) New Zealand game server, why bother maintaining it as a seperate realm you need to re-login to access? It was worth the bother to re-login when it got you decent speeds, but without them it's just a pain in the ass. You may as well just lift the access lists and put allow access to these machines from the general internet. Or is that what's happening anyway? I remember hearing something recently about JSG going away.
Well it won't count to your usage cap. Your 10Gb Usage cap. Including NATIONAL Traffic National traffic thats delivered over the public peering exchanges. Thats ~free anyway. </rant> _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. CAUTION: This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is intended to be read only by the named recipient(s). It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. Do not use any information contained in it.
MCI has not built a new 'peering hub'. They've built a new transit POP that is properly part of their UUNET Transit product, instead of being a mish-mash of Voyager kit that was on UUNET-crack to hold it all up. I was talking to their peering coordinator for AsiaPac yesterday and they're not sure what to do about NZ and peering, because they have a global standard peering policy (www.mci.com/peering) that nobody in NZ would meet. At this stage they're just shifting people who are already peering with them at APE onto their AsiaPac AS (AS703) and off the Voyager AS (AS4740) as they are decomissioning the Voyager kit. aj On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Steve Schmidt wrote:
The question will be "Free" for how much longer?
I have heard rumors that Citylink may have some new tricks up their sleeve (free to comment, open for blasting) to try and maintain free peering exchanges but it will ultimately come down to all the "other" isp's ensuring that they continue to peer at the exchanges. (note: MCI/Voyager just completing their own peering hub and peering arrangements are now being "reviewed") TCNZ are reviewing. TCL have already made their intentions clear. (pardon the pun :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Patterson [mailto:richard(a)helix.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2004 10:28 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] FYI: Telecom changes the ADSL playing field again...
J S Russell wrote:
Doesn't this kinda defeat the whole point of having a seperate realm
for
JSG, then? That full-speed business was the only thing that made it interesting. If your connectivity to it is the same as your connectivity to any other normally-peered (Hi TelstraClear!) New Zealand game server, why bother maintaining it as a seperate realm you need to re-login to access? It was worth the bother to re-login when it got you decent speeds, but without them it's just a pain in the ass. You may as well just lift the access lists and put allow access to these machines from the general internet. Or is that what's happening anyway? I remember hearing something recently about JSG going away.
Well it won't count to your usage cap. Your 10Gb Usage cap. Including NATIONAL Traffic National traffic thats delivered over the public peering exchanges. Thats ~free anyway.
</rant>
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
CAUTION: This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is intended to be read only by the named recipient(s). It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. Do not use any information contained in it.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Alastair Johnson wrote:
I was talking to their peering coordinator for AsiaPac yesterday and they're not sure what to do about NZ and peering, because they have a global standard peering policy (www.mci.com/peering) that nobody in NZ would meet.
Am I the only person who finds this incredibly amusing? We have, on one side, TCL, who're determined to play the "peering game" like the big boys in the US do it (similar-sized players peering, and selling transit to smaller players), and, on the other side one of the true behemoths of international connectivity saying that not even NZ's largest player would meet T1-level peering requirements in the US. Does put TCL (and TCNZ) into perspective, really. Shame that beanies are generally incapable of seeing the situation in such terms. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Matthew Poole wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Alastair Johnson wrote:
have a global standard peering policy (www.mci.com/peering) that nobody in NZ would meet.
Am I the only person who finds this incredibly amusing? We have, on one side, TCL, who're determined to play the "peering game" like the big boys in the US do it (similar-sized players peering, and selling transit to smaller players), and, on the other side one of the true behemoths of international connectivity saying that not even NZ's largest player would meet T1-level peering requirements in the US. Does put TCL (and TCNZ) into perspective, really. Shame that beanies are generally incapable of seeing the situation in such terms.
Even though we're now drifting very far off topic... TCL has informed me that they will not peer with MCI NZ after they decomission their APE/WIX peering, as they are not a "Tier 1 carrier". It seems that TCL think that in order to peer with them, you need to operate a national IP network (MCI is only in Auckland -- coincidentally, in TCL's colocation facility), on your OWN NATIONAL FIBER network. They also said that "MCI won't peer with us in the US, so we won't peer with them here". Now, MCI has a standard peering policy for a reason: so they don't get accused of unfair practise with regards to peering. If you can meet their standards, then you peer. I doubt TCL has even close to a single OC48 of traffic to MCI, much less multiple OC48s. Reach, maybe, but that's not TCL. Incidentally, TCL is an MCI transit customer in LA. So, if you buy MCI NZ transit as a corporate, you'll get routed to Sydney to reach TCL. Which doesn't bother MCI, because they have tons of bandwidth and money. It might bother some NZ people trying to talk to other NZ people that connect to MCI though (eg. GE.) It was with great pleasure that I cancelled our TCL-provided APE circuit last week, after shifting to another carrier. To keep it on topic: What do people think will happen with TCL's de-peering once UBS rolls out? ISPs will suddenly have to fork out a lot more for domestic transit to TCL because of all their extra UBSified DSL customers. Although, they'll be saving the costs of Telecom transit because they won't need to push so much traffic to Fast IP Direct! aj. (who does not work for any of the above companies, does not represent their opinions, policies, truths, mistruths, or their definition of "is"). -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
This whole debate is fast becoming redundant now, as Telecom is starting to roll out direct-to-the-customer internet access products. (Nb: This is a Global Gateway product, not Xtra) examples of which are frame relay services where the customer get a raw feed and only has to pay for data and their frame relay access circuit. There is no PVC charge (Regardless of where you are in NZ) and no separate ISP-end circuit charges. Thus basic internet access is becoming another telco provided commodity, almost just another layer of the telco network. Michael Hallager
Am I the only person who finds this incredibly amusing? We have, on one side, TCL, who're determined to play the "peering game" like the big boys in the US do it (similar-sized players peering, and selling transit to smaller players), and, on the other side one of the true behemoths of international connectivity saying that not even NZ's largest player would meet T1-level peering requirements in the US. Does put TCL (and TCNZ) into perspective, really. Shame that beanies are generally incapable of seeing the situation in such terms.
Even though we're now drifting very far off topic...
TCL has informed me that they will not peer with MCI NZ after they decomission their APE/WIX peering, as they are not a "Tier 1 carrier".
It seems that TCL think that in order to peer with them, you need to operate a national IP network (MCI is only in Auckland -- coincidentally, in TCL's colocation facility), on your OWN NATIONAL FIBER network.
They also said that "MCI won't peer with us in the US, so we won't peer with them here". Now, MCI has a standard peering policy for a reason: so they don't get accused of unfair practise with regards to peering. If you can meet their standards, then you peer. I doubt TCL has even close to a single OC48 of traffic to MCI, much less multiple OC48s. Reach, maybe, but that's not TCL.
Incidentally, TCL is an MCI transit customer in LA.
So, if you buy MCI NZ transit as a corporate, you'll get routed to Sydney to reach TCL. Which doesn't bother MCI, because they have tons of bandwidth and money. It might bother some NZ people trying to talk to other NZ people that connect to MCI though (eg. GE.)
It was with great pleasure that I cancelled our TCL-provided APE circuit last week, after shifting to another carrier.
To keep it on topic: What do people think will happen with TCL's de-peering once UBS rolls out? ISPs will suddenly have to fork out a lot more for domestic transit to TCL because of all their extra UBSified DSL customers.
Although, they'll be saving the costs of Telecom transit because they won't need to push so much traffic to Fast IP Direct!
On 20 Oct 2004, at 18:54, Michael Hallager wrote:
This whole debate is fast becoming redundant now, as Telecom is starting to roll out direct-to-the-customer internet access products.
Surely Telecom have been doing this since about 1994? Joe
This whole debate is fast becoming redundant now, as Telecom is starting to roll out direct-to-the-customer internet access products.
Surely Telecom have been doing this since about 1994?
Yes, however it is going to continue. The internet industry in NZ is going to keep on contracting to a few players, all of whom: 1. Own their own delivery network -or- 2. Can offer something truely unique to the marketplace I deal with a lot of businesses and I am constantly hearing the same complaints about the same ISP companies. Also, NZ is still over run with small 'virtual' ISPs who will not be able to stay in business because they are too small and have nothing different to offer, as they are limited by their hosts offering, and if anything are a liability to a business client if they go awol as many have leaving the client high and dry for a short while. My two cents worth for a mid size ISP - to stay in business, go and do an Iconz or something - they found themselves a fabulous little island with people who have money and crap internet access and they went and built a delivery network, and saw a further opportunity to extend it to a couple of east Auckland no-DSL areas. That is clever business. That is also astute from a technical perspective as well. I have not however heard of one person who has a complaint about the ADSL service. Our discussion here has some interesting technical merits (Some of which I agree with) but has very little meaning in the marketplace. Michael Hallager networkStuff ltd www.networkstuff.co.nz | p.09.839.1000 | m.029.638.7883
On 20 Oct 2004, at 18:27, Alastair Johnson wrote:
TCL has informed me that they will not peer with MCI NZ after they decomission their APE/WIX peering, as they are not a "Tier 1 carrier".
It seems that TCL think that in order to peer with them, you need to operate a national IP network (MCI is only in Auckland -- coincidentally, in TCL's colocation facility), on your OWN NATIONAL FIBER network.
It's not unusual for global tier-1 carriers to find them relegated to the bottom of the stack when they deploy service in regional markets, and it's really not stretching the odious phrase "tier-1" in new and exciting ways to suggest that MCI are not tier-1 in New Zealand, just as TCL is not tier-1 anywhere outside New Zealand.
They also said that "MCI won't peer with us in the US, so we won't peer with them here".
If you look beyond the mirth engendered by that quote given the networks' respective sizes (and the fact that, as you noticed, TCL is a customer of MCI), both MCI and TCL are really making the same point: MCI's peering requirements are nominally about deployed infrastructure across each of their three regions; TCL's peering requirements are about deployed infrastructure within New Zealand. It does make sense, kind of. If you turn your head sideways and squint a bit. Joe
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
It's not unusual for global tier-1 carriers to find them relegated to the bottom of the stack when they deploy service in regional markets, and it's really not stretching the odious phrase "tier-1" in new and exciting ways to suggest that MCI are not tier-1 in New Zealand, just as TCL is not tier-1 anywhere outside New Zealand.
I agree totally. It's just amusing how TCL are thinking things through, and how little they understand the market. I've had a fairly large number of conversations with people inside TCL about their depeering and they have a lot of misconceptions. According to them, only "The Gang Of Seven" peer in the US. They totally ignore the niche IXes such as NYIIX, NOTA, LINX, AMS-IX, etc. Even little regionals in the US (eg. NAC) find that they can get a lot of content off their network via peering vs transit. BBC is another example: They've found it cheaper to build a global IP network to deliver the BBC.com content via mostly peering connections, instead of using transit.
They also said that "MCI won't peer with us in the US, so we won't peer with them here".
If you look beyond the mirth engendered by that quote given the networks' respective sizes (and the fact that, as you noticed, TCL is a customer of MCI), both MCI and TCL are really making the same point: MCI's peering requirements are nominally about deployed infrastructure across each of their three regions; TCL's peering requirements are about deployed infrastructure within New Zealand.
Well, TCL told me that if you don't have a national fiber-based network, they're not going to peer. So that effectively leaves only Telecom as a peer. Their problem was, say, an Auckland based ISP dumping megabits of content onto their network, for delivery to a customer in Christchurch. TCL has to haul the bits. And they don't like it. Without going into the whole debate again, it cracks me up that their ONLY peer with Telecom is in Auckland. Because GGI's network is in Auckland. Their other argument against peering with ISPs is that apparently we give free colocation to "hosters" (I assume he means content heavy sites or big webhosting firms) in order to build traffic volume to obtain peering. I don't know about other networks, but I know our IDC and network doesn't operate itself for free, so we certainly don't give it away. Domestic infrastructure still has definite costs. I guess we'll see what happens in 10 days.
It does make sense, kind of. If you turn your head sideways and squint a bit.
And stand on one leg, and bury your head in the sand. :) aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
Alastair Johnson wrote:
Their problem was, say, an Auckland based ISP dumping megabits of content onto their network, for delivery to a customer in Christchurch.
A TCL customer in ChCh, or another ISP customer? -- Juha
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Alastair Johnson wrote:
Their problem was, say, an Auckland based ISP dumping megabits of content onto their network, for delivery to a customer in Christchurch.
A TCL customer in ChCh, or another ISP customer?
A TCL customer in ChCh, be it an ISP, corporate, dialup, DSL, RFC1149, etc. aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Alastair Johnson wrote:
A TCL customer in ChCh, be it an ISP, corporate, dialup, DSL, RFC1149, etc.
Presumably a paying customer of TCL, that had requested the said traffic before?
Yes. I hope we're not going to get into the peering semantics debate again. It's been over-hashed. You heard my opinions on it at D-Central. Which is now called "The Patriot", which is disturbing. There: We're on topic again. D-Central/The Patriot is a pub. Beer is on topic. aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Alastair Johnson wrote:
Their problem was, say, an Auckland based ISP dumping megabits of content onto their network, for delivery to a customer in Christchurch.
A TCL customer in ChCh, or another ISP customer?
A TCL customer in ChCh, be it an ISP, corporate, dialup, DSL, RFC1149, etc.
Bollocks. What about a United States customer "dumping" megabits of content onto their network, for delivery to a customer in Christchurch? Like those Apple guys with their "iTunes" service, or those Valve Software dudes, with their "Steam" product. Logically, they should be paying TelstraClear, too. They're using TelstraClears network to get their content to TelstraClear customers. Except .. oh, wait, no the internet _doesn't actually work like that_, does it? It's the _TelstraClear customers_ who are paying TelstraClear to bring internet content to them, and it's actually TelstraClears problem to sort out the most efficient and cost-effective way to do that, so as to maximise profit. And what do you know, the most efficient and cost-effective way to do that turns out to be setting up direct peering links with the major content providers, or with IXes that the major content providers have a presence at. Who'd have thought? What TelstraClear seems to think will happen is that they will de-peer, and everyone else will go "Bloody hell! Can't reach TelstraClear via a cheap, cost-effective route! Having to send data via my default route! Must give them money to rectify this!" What I think will happen, on the other hand, is that they will de-peer and everyone else will go "Huh. How about that. Well, whatever. It's their network, they can do what they want." and that meanwhile a large chunk of TelstraClears customers will ring them up their account reps/call center and say "Why can't I get to Trademe when all my friends on other ISPs can?" or "Why is it really slow to get to NZDating when it's really fast from every other ISP?". And TelstraClear will tell them .. [Something. I have no idea what. I don't know what I'd say to my customer base at this point.] ...and then the customers will promptly: (a) Leave. When you're Telstra in Australia (where I suspect this de-peering directive has originated) you get to laugh loudly at this point and say "Hah! You'll _what_, customer base?! Go elsewhere?! AHAHAHAHAHA, where are you going to go? We're TELSTRA!". But in New Zealand, the customers have a big selection of other ISPs who can offer exactly the same services as TelstraClear do (even using re-sold TelstraClear network infrastructure) and who also peer with everyone they can. I don't see ANY reason why people couldn't go elsewhere. (b) Make Noise. Bitch and Gripe at TelstraClear so much that they quietly resume advertising their networks to the route reflectors, and it's business as usual on the NZ Internet. I'm pretty much expecting this to happen, assuming TCL actually get around to de-peering in the first place. That they may not de-peer at all is actually a possibility, given that I don't know ANYONE who's actually gone and bought a domestic transit connection from them. As usual when I am discussing this particular topic, I must stress that my employer ICONZ does have a commercial arrangement with TelstraClear which covers domestic transit, and that ICONZ are very happy with the service, and that I am not saying anything negative about the TelstraClear Domestic Transit service itself. The views expressed in this message are my own personal opinions, and should not be viewed as anything else, and may not accurately reflect the views of ICONZ and ICONZ Management. Please don't sue, KTHX. JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Alastair Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Alastair Johnson wrote:
Their problem was, say, an Auckland based ISP dumping megabits of content onto their network, for delivery to a customer in Christchurch.
A TCL customer in ChCh, or another ISP customer?
A TCL customer in ChCh, be it an ISP, corporate, dialup, DSL, RFC1149, etc.
So if Telstra [1] didn't want the ISP to send packets to the customer then why did they advertise that customer's network to the ISP? Why not just advertise Auckland customers? Ihug used to/still does that in Wellington. I think everyone here knows the story they have given is just a excuse for public consumption rather than the actual reason they stopped peering. As such there probably isn't much point in us pretending to believe it. Anyway I've heard there has been a big drop in National traffic over the last few days :( . [1] - Does anyone else hate the use of TCNZ and TCL? I have to look at them 3 times to work our which is which. -- Simon J. Lyall. | Very Busy | Mail: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Alastair Johnson wrote:
Their other argument against peering with ISPs is that apparently we give free colocation to "hosters" (I assume he means content heavy sites or big webhosting firms) in order to build traffic volume to obtain peering.
Uh .. are you sure that's what they said. Because nobody else except TelstraClear charges for peering. So I'm guessing that the business model that the person you talked to imagines everyone else has is something like: 1) Free co-location to generate traffic to peers across IXes 2) Free peering connectvity across IXes 3) Spam NZNOG members 4) Profit! JSR -- John S Russell | Big Geek | Doing geek stuff.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, J S Russell wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Alastair Johnson wrote:
Their other argument against peering with ISPs is that apparently we give free colocation to "hosters" (I assume he means content heavy sites or big webhosting firms) in order to build traffic volume to obtain peering.
Uh .. are you sure that's what they said. Because nobody else except TelstraClear charges for peering. So I'm guessing that the business model that the person you talked to imagines everyone else has is something like:
Oh yes. Apparently us evil ISPs that abuse their national backbone are constantly giving away services for free, so we can get peering. I have no idea where they dreamed this up from. I think they were moaning about Trademe, to be honest. TCL's domestic transit isn't even cost effective when compared to The Other Carrier's service. They'll probably crank the prices up now though.
1) Free co-location to generate traffic to peers across IXes 2) Free peering connectvity across IXes 3) Spam NZNOG members 4) Profit!
I've missed the correlation of free transit to profit. aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
Alastair Johnson wrote:
MCI has not built a new 'peering hub'. They've built a new transit POP that is properly part of their UUNET Transit product, instead of being a mish-mash of Voyager kit that was on UUNET-crack to hold it all up.
I was talking to their peering coordinator for AsiaPac yesterday and they're not sure what to do about NZ and peering, because they have a global standard peering policy (www.mci.com/peering) that nobody in NZ would meet.
At this stage they're just shifting people who are already peering with them at APE onto their AsiaPac AS (AS703) and off the Voyager AS (AS4740) as they are decomissioning the Voyager kit.
Note they've declined to peer with the route servers at APE so you'll need a bilateral agreement with them if you want to exchange routes. I think it would be a win for all of us if MCI would peer with the route servers as each of you wouldn't have to be negotiating a seperate peering arrangement. As the US motto says: E pluribus unum - out of many, one!
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Andy Linton wrote:
Note they've declined to peer with the route servers at APE so you'll need a bilateral agreement with them if you want to exchange routes. I think it would be a win for all of us if MCI would peer with the route servers as each of you wouldn't have to be negotiating a seperate peering arrangement. As the US motto says: E pluribus unum - out of many, one!
Well, they're not sure what to do with NZ peering at this stage. There are reasons for not using the RS', two of which impact us: 1) AS Path length. Since the RS' have valid ASNs, we end up seeing an additional AS in the path. Tweaking localpref to prefer RS routes is not always feasible. 2) We don't like traffic to randomly change directions. We announce into the RS' at APE and WIX, but are quite restrictive in what we accept back in order to stop big flow-changes. That said, I do have a question: Who is on WIX, but does not peer with the RS'? If anyone is like this, please contact me so we can establish peering. aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
Alastair Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Andy Linton wrote:
That said, I do have a question: Who is on WIX, but does not peer with the RS'? If anyone is like this, please contact me so we can establish peering.
You can see who peers with the servers at the wix web site. As to who doesn't peer, I think that's a question for the readers of this list. We'd love to have you peer with the servers as well as with Alastair. While you're all free to negotiate bilateral peering arrangements with each other across the APE and WIX, we think that you should also peer with the servers and apply filters and preferences etc as you see fit as well. Remember that if you're a second tier ISP (be honest with assessment of yourself) then peering is going to get harder over the immediate short term if/when TelstraClear, Telecom (and possibly MCI) pull back from peering with you all. At that point if you're all peering with each other over the exchanges and you can say all our routes are available at the route servers you may be in better shape to negotiate. Or you can let the big boys play the "divide and conquer" game they love so dearly.
participants (9)
-
Alastair Johnson -
Andy Linton -
J S Russell -
Joe Abley -
Juha Saarinen -
Matthew Poole -
Michael Hallager -
Simon Lyall -
Steve Schmidt