RE: WIX/APE route servers (WARNING useful content)
-----Original Message----- From: Joerg Micheel [SMTP:joerg(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz] Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2002 09:41 To: Roger De Salis Cc: Dean Pemberton; NZNOG List; k claffy; David Moore Subject: Re: WIX/APE route servers (WARNING useful content)
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 08:24:59PM +1200, Roger De Salis wrote:
APNIC quote several examples of poor policy within national communications framework where local traffic travels to the US backbone and back, due to local regualtions that make peering impossible. (India is a classic example.)
We have backbone data from an OC48MON in San Jose which confirms this kind of erratic routing for a number of countries in the Asia Pacific. If you need more details, we should get CAIDA involved in this discussion.
This discussion has a direct bearing on the matter of international Internet charging about which I have posted on a number of occasions. There is a widespread movement in intergovernmental organisations (APEC TEL, APT, ITU-T, ITU-D) attempting to first measure international traffic (nothing wrong with that), second assess who benefits (by some yet to be determined means), and then through some regulatory mechanism institute a 'fairer' cost sharing mechanism. There is no prize for essays outlining the numerous pitfalls in all of this. At the same time, there is some evidence that NZ is quite disadvantaged cf US operators by the present 'smallest ISP/carrier carries all the connnection costs' system. For example we have some very new survey results indicating that 18% of NZ firms with 50+ staff locate their web sites off shore (presumably, mainly in the US). Having better peering systems world-wide would not actually assist NZ much in this as we face the same problem with links to Australia and Asia as we do to the US. Nevertheless, saner peering would reduce costs overall and increase reliability, decrease latency, etc. I would very much appreciate anyone with information relating to influences on current traffic flows and especially regulatory effects, such as the regulatory system in India which prevents local peering, contacting me directly. Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658 Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wednesday, May 22, 2002, at 06:11 , Frank March wrote:
This discussion has a direct bearing on the matter of international Internet charging about which I have posted on a number of occasions. There is a widespread movement in intergovernmental organisations (APEC TEL, APT, ITU-T, ITU-D) attempting to first measure international traffic (nothing wrong with that), second assess who benefits (by some yet to be determined means), and then through some regulatory mechanism institute a 'fairer' cost sharing mechanism.
I think the problem with the "fair" argument is that there's already a very pragmatic way of gauging who benefits from shifting bits over the Pacific. + if a NZ ISP loses the ability to send packets to the US, 99% of their customers complain + if a US ISP loses the ability to send packets to NZ, 99% of their customers don't notice This doesn't appear to leave NZ in much of a bargaining position. To your "saner peering" question: what makes you think that peering in NZ is not sane at present? A positive legacy of the use of OSPF at NZIX was that it allowed an environment of pervasive domestic peering to develop, such that the *market* demanded cheap and fast access within NZ by the time many commercial operators appeared. When I was still breaking routers in Auckland, I wasn't aware of any NZ net that 4768 had to send packets overseas to reach. Has this changed in the past two years? Joe - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (2)
-
Frank March -
Joe Abley