North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Other flapping prefixes. Compare and contrast.
Well, while Sean's wording at times is, ahem, suboptimal, he is referring to a real problem in the Internet System, and in fact one that the North American Network Operators Group should take responsibility for, at least for the North American part. The problem is what others believe is a strength: an anarchic system of many autonomous service providers with little or no service model/metrics (neither for the local nor for the system level), and no well defined rules of conduct for interoperation and problem resolution. A few weeks back I had problems with getting to another CONUS site. Not exactly capillary connectivity, source was at SDSC, destination at FIX-West. My service provider is CERFnet. Some days after emailing about the problem (it happened on a Friday evening that I had very intermittent connectivity, with packets from my traceroute getting lost in Sprintlink land) I got actually quite polite and professional responses that, based on my traceroute, it was outside of CERFnet's domain and best they can do is inform Sprint. As I network engineer I understand the context and the issues. As a network user I do not find the service model acceptable. I thought my service provider was selling me Internet connectivity, not regional connectivity. This is not to single out CERFnet or Sprint, given the way The System is run, the service providers likely are all the same, at least above the 90th percentile. Certainly because there is no global (or even domestic) problem resolution procedure that has any leverage with other service providers. Eventually something hits the roof for someone, and he starts bitching more publicly as his only remaining leverage, which is what seemed happening to Sean. What choice did he have? Run to the government and ask for regulation, as the service providers just can't get their act together at a systemic level? Well, that may not be one of *his* first choices, but sooner or later Real Users (rather than us networking bigots) get pissed. You know, those you sell services to? That you give, say, T1 connectivity to without being clear what it means to a user, who's traffic may have to traverse five ISPs? And who may not be interested in hearing about finger pointing from the service provider or deferred problem resolution? I mean, what would you say if your electrical power would drop to 80 Volts (more than once in a year) and your local power company would tell you "uh, that's not our fault, it is just power company 2000 miles away ran out of oil, or misplaced some nuclear refuelment rod?" This all should be critical to the NANOG agenda if the service providers would want to continue to provide quality services. I think it is an attitude problem of people largely caring about their own swamp.