Hi all NZIX (formerly AKL-IX) are holding their end of year drinks on the 7th of December in Auckland. https://ix.nz/events/ If you are a member and in Auckland please RSVP and head along. See you there! Cheers Dave
Hi All, I maybe missing on some last century/decade history, but what's the current story with Spark/Vodafone public peering in Australia but not in New Zealand? With <somebody> has stopped paid(?) peering with these guys recently, is it a today's case that rest of the country talks to Spark (government owned?)/Vodafone via 50ms Sydney path and everybody is happy with it? I'm sure I'm missing something important here (except greed). Regards, Dmitry
Hi Dmitry, Peering is a meeting of equals. Any time there's an asymmetry in investment in networks, the party with a more valuable network will demand a premium for high-performance access to their network. When I worked at a startup ISP in 1995 (first year of commercial Internet access), the big players would not peer with us (Internet Direct) until we purchased our own national backbone. At that point the bar was DS3 (45 mbps) to at least Reston VA, Chicago, and San Jose. They were happy to sell us transit until we got that big. (which didn't happen) Nothing has changed and New Zealand is no different from anywhere else, except for having a country with a lower population density and more difficult/expensive network operations conditions that most. If you want a more detailed explanation I've written a case study including financial models (click the triangles to expand them) of why two island carriers in the Pacific might not peer on-island. That's here: https://beta.pacpeer.org/avaiki As it is on a beta site I'd be happy for feedback from any reader. Cheers, Jon On 30 November 2017 at 05:21, Dmitry Konchanin <dmitry.konchanin(a)dtsanz.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I maybe missing on some last century/decade history, but what's the current story with Spark/Vodafone public peering in Australia but not in New Zealand? With <somebody> has stopped paid(?) peering with these guys recently, is it a today's case that rest of the country talks to Spark (government owned?)/Vodafone via 50ms Sydney path and everybody is happy with it?
I'm sure I'm missing something important here (except greed).
Regards, Dmitry
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Thanks everybody for replies here and off list, and especially Jonathan for that Pacific island case . Summary I got: 1. Spark is not government owned, my bad, so they can do whatever they want as a private business. 2. Vodafone do actually peer at NZ IXs, and that's cool. 3. It still looks... sub-optimal. Traffic still goes between Spark NZ and <random ISP>, and instead of using cheap IX link it's using expensive NZ-AU cable. Yep, cable is used with a different in/out ratio for Spark and <random ISP>, but approach "we suffer a bit but they will suffer more" seems to be lying too far in a "business area" from my purely technical sit.. To Nathan Ward:
If it is painful for your customers to reach Spark/VFNZ, then you need to find out how you can reach those networks, and if the cost to do so is worth it to reduce that pain. There are a number of options for doing so.
If you have a 50ms RTT to Sydney from Auckland, something is wrong. Expect 25-30ish. I would dream of an official Spark letterhead paper saying "We don't open peer in NZ because we are big and the rest are small" to show any inquiring customers... 50ms RTT is from Auckland to Auckland via Sydney, so 2x TransTasman distance.
Regards, Dmitry
On 1/12/2017, at 8:08 AM, Dmitry Konchanin <dmitry.konchanin(a)dtsanz.com> wrote:
Thanks everybody for replies here and off list, and especially Jonathan for that Pacific island case . Summary I got:
1. Spark is not government owned, my bad, so they can do whatever they want as a private business.
2. Vodafone do actually peer at NZ IXs, and that's cool.
3. It still looks... sub-optimal. Traffic still goes between Spark NZ and <random ISP>, and instead of using cheap IX link it's using expensive NZ-AU cable. Yep, cable is used with a different in/out ratio for Spark and <random ISP>, but approach "we suffer a bit but they will suffer more" seems to be lying too far in a "business area" from my purely technical sit..
We publish a couple of topology maps that you might find useful http://ip.topology.nz/ http://bgp.topology.nz/ Sebastian can answer any questions about them. cheers Jay -- Jay Daley Chief Executive NZRS Ltd desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley
Very cool view of the nz internets For those looking … slip a .net. in the name http://ip.topology.net.nz/latest/index.html <http://ip.topology.net.nz/latest/index.html> Cheers, Steve
On 1/12/2017, at 8:22 AM, Jay Daley <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
On 1/12/2017, at 8:08 AM, Dmitry Konchanin <dmitry.konchanin(a)dtsanz.com> wrote:
Thanks everybody for replies here and off list, and especially Jonathan for that Pacific island case . Summary I got:
1. Spark is not government owned, my bad, so they can do whatever they want as a private business.
2. Vodafone do actually peer at NZ IXs, and that's cool.
3. It still looks... sub-optimal. Traffic still goes between Spark NZ and <random ISP>, and instead of using cheap IX link it's using expensive NZ-AU cable. Yep, cable is used with a different in/out ratio for Spark and <random ISP>, but approach "we suffer a bit but they will suffer more" seems to be lying too far in a "business area" from my purely technical sit..
We publish a couple of topology maps that you might find useful
http://ip.topology.nz/ http://bgp.topology.nz/
Sebastian can answer any questions about them.
cheers Jay
-- Jay Daley Chief Executive NZRS Ltd desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Hi Dmitry, On 1 December 2017 at 08:08, Dmitry Konchanin <dmitry.konchanin(a)dtsanz.com> wrote:
I would dream of an official Spark letterhead paper saying "We don't open peer in NZ because we are big and the rest are small" to show any inquiring customers...
Actually, speaking as a customer, I don't think that would work in your favour. The customer's response would very likely be "Oh, you're too small, I'll switch over to <big provider>". Particularly if it's a medium or big customer. Cheers, Lesley L
Hi Lesley, Last use case I was dealing with was about Spark users access to customer's hosted servers. I haven't heard much about Spark offering datacentres and colo to a regular public, but they do and customers have to chose Spark vs rest of NZ, I would not be too sure about outcome. As long as everybody (including me) know that it's not some kind of technical flaw but a business decision, I'm happy to pass it down to AMs. Regards, Dmitry On 1/12/2017 7:15 p.m., LRW Longhurst wrote:
Hi Dmitry, Actually, speaking as a customer, I don't think that would work in your favour. The customer's response would very likely be "Oh, you're too small, I'll switch over to <big provider>". Particularly if it's a medium or big customer.
Cheers, Lesley L
Hi all, Just wanted to express where VocusGroup NZ (AS9790/AS9503) sits on this matter. Spark is planning on decommissioning the Spark peering locations in April, and we are really concerned about what this move will mean for us. There is no replacement option to peer locally offered by Spark apart from being a customer of paid transit or paid peering. On the face of it, it looks like price gauging that will inject a great deal of cost into our business, for no gain. It’s quite staggering that Spark expect us to pay to send their customers traffic from our content, this is misguided, and just not how the Internet should be run in 2017. Spark continue to carry on an anti-competitive behaviour of charging to access their customers which is putting NZ network operators, particularly local content service providers, at a disadvantage. We think that Spark needs to understand that they are no longer the centre of the Internet in NZ, not to mention that its considerably cheaper to send traffic to Sydney than it is to send traffic into Spark, albeit +24ms RTT from Auckland. We have been trying to have an open discussion with Spark around peering for the past three months, but have been met with silence, which is, as you can imagine, frustrating. We have always supported a free and open internet. Businesses who advocate Paid Peering and/or Censorship are trying to limit the internet for their own commercial gain, which in our view is something that the New Zealand Internet community needs to stand firmly against. So what’s next? VocusGroup has no intention of renewing any of our paid peering agreements with Spark unless they are willing to come to the party and peer in the way the Internet was designed. On a cost-basis Spark are completely unjustified double-dipping and monetising access to their customers within NZ especially given today's environment where their own local scaling costs as a consumer ISP are driven by massive CDN growth with UFB. For Spark to peer with operators at common meeting points in NZ would be an insignificant cost to them, as they do so in Australia freely. We’d like Spark representatives to have an open discussion about peering, and come to an agreement before April. We have an open peering agreement and more than happy to peer at any of the locations we have a presence in, and we openly peer at AKL-IX, APE, Mega-IX (Auckland) and WIX. We firmly believe that Spark should come to the peering party. As an audience of network operators the benefits of settlement-free local peering, and the challenges dealing with networks that have a legacy "premium" mindset, are well documented in this thread and others. Any questions please feel free email me. Simon Allard | Development & Operations Manager D: +64 9 550 2790E: Simon.Allard(a)vocusgroup.co.nz M: +64 20 1000 790W: vocusgroup.co.nz A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622 From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Dmitry Konchanin Sent: Friday, 1 December 2017 7:32 p.m. To: LRW Longhurst <walker.longhurst(a)gmail.com> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Spark/Vodafone peering Hi Lesley, Last use case I was dealing with was about Spark users access to customer's hosted servers. I haven't heard much about Spark offering datacentres and colo to a regular public, but they do and customers have to chose Spark vs rest of NZ, I would not be too sure about outcome. As long as everybody (including me) know that it's not some kind of technical flaw but a business decision, I'm happy to pass it down to AMs. Regards, Dmitry On 1/12/2017 7:15 p.m., LRW Longhurst wrote: Hi Dmitry, Actually, speaking as a customer, I don't think that would work in your favour. The customer's response would very likely be "Oh, you're too small, I'll switch over to <big provider>". Particularly if it's a medium or big customer. Cheers, Lesley L
On 30/11/2017, at 11:21 AM, Dmitry Konchanin <dmitry.konchanin(a)dtsanz.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I maybe missing on some last century/decade history, but what's the current story with Spark/Vodafone public peering in Australia but not in New Zealand? With <somebody> has stopped paid(?) peering with these guys recently, is it a today's case that rest of the country talks to Spark (government owned?)/Vodafone via 50ms Sydney path and everybody is happy with it?
If you’d like some operational feedback, give some examples of where you’re seeing this. Source/dest/traceroutes/etc. etc. are all useful. Not sure why you say “government owned?” there - are you implying that Spark might be government owned? It is not, if that’s your question. As Jon says, peering is in NZ as it is in the rest of the world. Everyone can choose to not peer, for whatever reason they want. It may be the case that some networks partially peer in some locations, fully in others, etc. etc. Networks are flexible, so, business needs often dictate things that might seem weird on the surface. NZ has a tradition of lots of peering, but, traditions are not rules. If it is painful for your customers to reach Spark/VFNZ, then you need to find out how you can reach those networks, and if the cost to do so is worth it to reduce that pain. There are a number of options for doing so. If you have a 50ms RTT to Sydney from Auckland, something is wrong. Expect 25-30ish. -- Nathan Ward
Looks pretty in-country to me from my home bigpipe (spark) vdsl -
tracert ns1.ihug.co.nz
Tracing route to ns1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.129.67] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.20.1 2 33 ms 35 ms 16 ms 210.54.38.1 3 16 ms 16 ms 17 ms 122.56.60.70 4 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 122.56.60.71 5 41 ms 16 ms 15 ms g2-0-3-549.tkcr4.global-gateway.net.nz [122.56.118.97] 6 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 203.98.18.69 7 24 ms 16 ms 16 ms 203.98.18.163 8 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms bvi-400.bgnzldv02.akl.vf.net.nz [203.109.180.242] 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 17 ms 16 ms 44 ms ns1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.129.67] On 30 November 2017 at 23:15, Nathan Ward <nznog(a)daork.net> wrote:
On 30/11/2017, at 11:21 AM, Dmitry Konchanin < dmitry.konchanin(a)dtsanz.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I maybe missing on some last century/decade history, but what's the current story with Spark/Vodafone public peering in Australia but not in New Zealand? With <somebody> has stopped paid(?) peering with these guys recently, is it a today's case that rest of the country talks to Spark (government owned?)/Vodafone via 50ms Sydney path and everybody is happy with it?
If you’d like some operational feedback, give some examples of where you’re seeing this. Source/dest/traceroutes/etc. etc. are all useful.
Not sure why you say “government owned?” there - are you implying that Spark might be government owned? It is not, if that’s your question.
As Jon says, peering is in NZ as it is in the rest of the world. Everyone can choose to not peer, for whatever reason they want. It may be the case that some networks partially peer in some locations, fully in others, etc. etc. Networks are flexible, so, business needs often dictate things that might seem weird on the surface. NZ has a tradition of lots of peering, but, traditions are not rules. If it is painful for your customers to reach Spark/VFNZ, then you need to find out how you can reach those networks, and if the cost to do so is worth it to reduce that pain. There are a number of options for doing so.
If you have a 50ms RTT to Sydney from Auckland, something is wrong. Expect 25-30ish.
-- Nathan Ward
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On 30/11/2017, at 11:42 PM, Blair Harrison <nznog(a)jedi.school.nz> wrote:
Looks pretty in-country to me
from my home bigpipe (spark) vdsl -
I think the OP is talking about from other networks, not about Spark<->VFNZ connectivity. The question is, “Why do Spark and VFNZ appear to peer openly in Australia (and other economies) but not in NZ?”.. or something, it’s not really clear if “why” is the question to be honest. I think it was just trying to stir up a discussion. I don’t imagine it will, other than the usual scrappy providers that complain about it. -- Nathan Ward
On 30/11/2017, at 11:15 PM, Nathan Ward <nznog(a)daork.net> wrote: I maybe missing on some last century/decade history, but what's the current story with Spark/Vodafone public peering in Australia but not in New Zealand? With <somebody> has stopped paid(?) peering with these guys recently, is it a today's case that rest of the country talks to Spark (government owned?)/Vodafone via 50ms Sydney path and everybody is happy with it? If you’d like some operational feedback, give some examples of where you’re seeing this. Source/dest/traceroutes/etc. etc. are all useful. Here's an example of what I'm thinking is maybe sub-optimal peering/routing, albeit at least in-country... My example traffic is sourced from a VF UFB static IP and heading to 2talk, but appears to be crossing the Spark network?! With all the industry consolidation these days it's hard to keep up. Is this expected behaviour these days, or something I should escalate? And presumably, if I escalate, it should be to 2talk not VF because the reverse direction seems to be OK? ladmin(a)fpl-rpi32 ~ $ mtr -n -c 2 sip.2talk.co.nz My traceroute [v0.85] fpl-rpi32 (0.0.0.0) Tue Dec 12 07:21:29 2017 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 192.168.1.1 0.0% 2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.0 2. 210.246.31.254 0.0% 2 52.5 44.7 37.0 52.5 11.0 3. 203.167.245.102 0.0% 2 5.0 4.3 3.6 5.0 1.0 4. 203.167.245.101 0.0% 2 3.3 4.7 3.3 6.0 1.7 5. 203.98.18.65 0.0% 2 14.6 14.2 13.9 14.6 0.0 6. 203.98.18.66 0.0% 2 16.2 16.0 15.8 16.2 0.0 7. 122.56.127.210 0.0% 2 14.3 14.1 13.8 14.3 0.0 8. 122.56.118.114 0.0% 2 14.1 14.8 14.1 15.5 1.0 9. 114.31.203.130 0.0% 2 14.4 13.9 13.4 14.4 0.0 10. 27.111.14.77 0.0% 2 16.5 14.8 13.2 16.5 2.2 11. 27.111.14.65 0.0% 2 14.8 15.1 14.8 15.5 0.0 Once more with DNS on: ladmin(a)fpl-rpi32 ~ $ mtr -c 2 sip.2talk.co.nz My traceroute [v0.85] fpl-rpi32 (0.0.0.0) Tue Dec 12 07:20:21 2017 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 192.168.1.1 0.0% 2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 0.0 2. 210-246-31-254.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz 0.0% 2 7.9 6.3 4.6 7.9 2.2 3. 203.167.245.102 0.0% 2 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 0.0 4. 203.167.245.101 0.0% 2 3.7 4.0 3.7 4.4 0.0 5. 203.98.18.65 0.0% 2 15.1 15.6 15.1 16.1 0.0 6. 203.98.18.66 0.0% 2 15.9 15.4 14.9 15.9 0.0 7. ae10-44.tkcr5.global-gateway.net.nz 0.0% 2 16.1 14.6 13.1 16.1 2.0 8. vocus-dom.tkcr5.global-gateway.net.nz 0.0% 2 14.4 14.9 14.4 15.5 0.0 9. as55561.cust.bdr01.alb01.akl.VOCUS.net.nz <http://alb01.akl.vocus.net.nz/> 0.0% 2 14.5 16.2 14.5 17.8 2.2 10. 27-111-14-77.2talk.co.nz 0.0% 2 13.6 14.2 13.6 14.8 0.0 11. phone.nzpbx.com 0.0% 2 15.7 14.9 14.1 15.7 1.0 Reverse direction appears OK (akl-ix), but visibility from my endpoint also isn't great: root(a)2tvm:~# mtr -c 2 210.246.28.87 My traceroute [v0.80] 2tvm.fiberphone.co.nz (0.0.0.0) Tue Dec 12 09:43:09 2017 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 103-29-30-1.static.2talk.co.nz 0.0% 2 0.9 2.3 0.9 3.7 2.0 2. ??? 3. as55561.akl-ix.nz 0.0% 2 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.2 4. 43.243.21.64 0.0% 2 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.1 0.2 5. ??? Or am I just confused and this is all optimal? - Pete Mundy
On 12/12/17 10:06, Pete Mundy wrote:
On 30/11/2017, at 11:15 PM, Nathan Ward <nznog(a)daork.net >> <mailto:nznog(a)daork.net>> wrote: >> >>> I maybe missing on some last century/decade history, but what's >>> the current story with Spark/Vodafone public peering in Australia >>> but not in New Zealand? With <somebody> has stopped paid(?) >>> peering with these guys recently, is it a today's case that rest >>> of the country talks to Spark (government owned?)/Vodafone via >>> 50ms Sydney path and everybody is happy with it? >> >> If you’d like some operational feedback, give some examples of >> where you’re seeing this. Source/dest/traceroutes/etc. etc. are all >> useful. > > Here's an example of what I'm thinking is maybe sub-optimal > peering/routing, albeit at least in-country... > > My example traffic is sourced from a VF UFB static IP and heading to > 2talk, but appears to be crossing the Spark network?! > > With all the industry consolidation these days it's hard to keep up. > Is this expected behaviour these days, or something I should > escalate? > > And presumably, if I escalate, it should be to 2talk not VF because > the reverse direction seems to be OK? > No, the opposite. 2talk to you is the route that is working optimally, VF is the party sending to odd places along the way despite apparently having a peering at ALK-IX with 2talk.
AYJ
No, the opposite. 2talk to you is the route that is working optimally, VF is the party sending to odd places along the way despite apparently having a peering at ALK-IX with 2talk.
Thanks for the input AJY. I see now looking back that my quoting was all stuffed up making my email almost unreadable! It was good of you to preserver with it. I had thought the issue might be to do with BGP advertisements of the local routes from the 2talk end not reaching VF's RIB for some reason, but I guess a problem at either end could cause that. Is anyone else with an endpoint on VF IP space able to check for me to see if their routing to sip.2talk.co.nz is going via GG too? If it's widespread then I'll take the time to put the end-user's hat on and call VF... (unless anyone VF is on-list and could investigate?). Pete On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:20 PM, TreeNet Admin <admin(a)treenetnz.com> wrote:
On 12/12/17 10:06, Pete Mundy wrote:
On 30/11/2017, at 11:15 PM, Nathan Ward <nznog(a)daork.net >> <mailto:
nznog(a)daork.net>> wrote: >> >>> I maybe missing on some
If you’d like some operational feedback, give some examples of >> where you’re seeing this. Source/dest/traceroutes/etc. etc. are all >> useful. > > Here's an example of what I'm thinking is maybe sub-optimal >
last century/decade history, but what's >>> the current story with Spark/Vodafone public peering in Australia >>> but not in New Zealand? With <somebody> has stopped paid(?) >>> peering with these guys recently, is it a today's case that rest >>> of the country talks to Spark (government owned?)/Vodafone via >>> 50ms Sydney path and everybody is happy with it? peering/routing, albeit at least in-country... > > My example traffic is sourced from a VF UFB static IP and heading to > 2talk, but appears to be crossing the Spark network?! > > With all the industry consolidation these days it's hard to keep up. > Is this expected behaviour these days, or something I should > escalate? > > And presumably, if I escalate, it should be to 2talk not VF because > the reverse direction seems to be OK? > No, the opposite. 2talk to you is the route that is working optimally, VF is the party sending to odd places along the way despite apparently having a peering at ALK-IX with 2talk.
AYJ
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
And I've been contacted by someone offlist. Not sure if it was the same someone or not (it was a bit earlier), but I do now know that those who need to know know, and I know what I don't need to know, which is no more ;) Thanks Nathan. Pete On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Nathan Ward <nznog(a)daork.net> wrote:
On 12/12/2017, at 1:38 PM, Pete Mundy <pete(a)mac.geek.nz> wrote:
(unless anyone VF is on-list and could investigate?).
I’ve prodded someone
On 30 November 2017 at 11:21, Dmitry Konchanin <dmitry.konchanin(a)dtsanz.com> wrote:
I maybe missing on some last century/decade history, but what's the current story with Spark/Vodafone public peering in Australia but not in New Zealand?
Peering is the exchange of traffic between customers of directly connected network operators, removing the requirement of a paid third party transit network operator. The two networks meet and exchange traffic as paid to do by their respective customers. For an internet, everybody either pays for transit or peers or such mix as pleases them. Where is the question. Legacy operators, particularly those who were monopolies, are trained to treat new entrants in their own markets as thieves of their customers (any you got, they lost) and attempt to dissuade competition and/or recoup the lost revenue through peering fees. They seek to make this extortion palatable by invoking sender-pays concepts originating postal services and retained in telephony (termination fees), and defining peering in a way that favours them being paid (unequal size, unequal investment, unequal traffic flow) Those termination fees are charges based asymmetry of traffic (and in a well-known NZ case, when it didn't work out the way it was expected, reneging on the payments occurred. The same way interconnection fees for 0867 calls that sank in Clear were arbitrarily and unilaterally suspected by Telecom) The traffic and termination cases are easily dismissed as all traffic out equals traffic in and vice while both operators are charging their customers for that already. Some of us recall being metered for both in and out traffic, the 40% left with quotas still are. If the investment argument was valid, it would mean the premium would be on the side of small rural ISPs who build their own infrastructure rather than those with large market shares running on high customer density third-party infrastructure. Oddly, you don't see that very often. In the excellent Avaiki case study provided by Jonathan, the result is not satisfactory and the mistake was in considering the internal costs of either of the parties. What ever those costs, they weren't going to be affected by peering and any attempt to recover costs from someone else's customer is outrageous. The regulator found the companies have dramatically different cost structures, and so what? (If Tangaroa was inefficient, the regulator just handed them a subsidy) The peering decision speaks of "consuming." Every bit that is sent is received and vice versa, who is consuming on a duplex link, who pays more when the traffic is unbalanced? Each company would be charging its customers (before peering) to recover their costs, and all that would arise in peering was better service. Consumer surplus and public good could have been improved. The money spent ignoring each other by talking through Los Angeles could have been more usefully employed. Pathetic. There may be other incentives, acquisition plan, mere vanity, bad-blood... who knows. What I do know is that it's sad, inefficient and unnecessary. Customers suffer because networks forget who they serve. I'd have made the decision thus: - Any competitor may request a peering session with the incumbent - Parties must equally split all costs associated with the interconnection point It would have improved service to the customer, which should be the regulators concern, at no impairment to the network operators. "Peering is a meeting of equals" is a conceit to justify why if you're not *equal* in one or other of the available dimensions (traffic, customers, investment) you get to help pay for the service the *larger* operator is selling to their customers. So in the end, the bigger one wins, and sans the lustre of the feeble pretexts, its just greedy, bullying and anti competitive. But even if you're "Tier 1" at home in pipsqueak NZ, when you get to Australia or the US, you're small fry and you do what the new entrants are happy to, peer. Its these changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes Nothing remains quite the same With all of our running and all of our cunning If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane Jimmy Buffett
Dmitry
Hamish. -- https://www.onename.io/hamishmacewan
Hi there, Question - mostly to RSPs - have anybody (especially support) noticed in the last 4-6 week an increased number of customer's complains on the inbound voice quality for VoIP services? Something that sounds like packet loss on the RTP stream. Like all different VoIP providers, different onsite routers (with a bit suspicion toward Mikrotiks), different location, nothing wrong on data traffic - with an only common things that 100/100mbit Chorus fibre used? Sounds like something Level 1 support would send away with "fix your router/no fault found" on the regular basis, but maybe not only me noticed a pattern? Regards, Dmitry
We have had no issues with 100/100 noting we do not have many clients at this speed and from our point of view its the same as every other speed up to 950/500. Mikrotik did bring out a new LTS version 6.48.5 recently and its got problems on some hardware. On 2021-11-25 22:34, Dmitry Konchanin wrote:
Hi there,
Question - mostly to RSPs - have anybody (especially support) noticed in the last 4-6 week an increased number of customer's complains on the inbound voice quality for VoIP services? Something that sounds like packet loss on the RTP stream.
Like all different VoIP providers, different onsite routers (with a bit suspicion toward Mikrotiks), different location, nothing wrong on data traffic - with an only common things that 100/100mbit Chorus fibre used?
Sounds like something Level 1 support would send away with "fix your router/no fault found" on the regular basis, but maybe not only me noticed a pattern?
Regards, Dmitry
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list -- nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz To unsubscribe send an email to nznog-leave(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
-- Net Trust Ltd Internet Servers and Network Systems Administration p: (06) 374 0880 | (09) 839 1000 m: 021 963 878 e: michael(a)nettrust.nz w: nettrust.nz
participants (13)
-
Blair Harrison -
Dave Mill -
Dmitry Konchanin -
Hamish MacEwan -
Jay Daley -
Jonathan Brewer -
LRW Longhurst -
Michael Hallager -
Nathan Ward -
Pete Mundy -
Simon Allard -
Steve Hawken -
TreeNet Admin