North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Ungodly packet loss rates

  • From: Gordon Cook
  • Date: Tue Oct 22 20:45:53 1996

On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, John Curran wrote:

> At 15:39 10/22/96, Kent W. England wrote:
> >...
> >But there isn't any gee-whiz technology that you can do at a 
> >private interconnect that you can't do at a NAP/MAE. Open NAPs 
> >aren't bad engineering.
> 
> While there is no difference from a technology perspective,
> there's also no benefit to be gained by interconnecting large
> networks at a public (as opposed to private) interconnects.

John, you say there is no benefit to be gained by large providers using
anything other than private inter-connects.  may i refine that question
slightly and ask: benefit **to whom?**  to the large provider?  If the
question of benefit is limited in this manner, i'd guess that your
statement is quite correct.

but what does this discussion begin to bring in focus regarding the
evolving topology of the internet?  i wrote more than a year ago about the
"club of six" being at the top of the internet hierarchy by virtue of
interconnects and peering with each other at most of the five major
exchange points.  Since then one of many obvious questions is: what does
it take for the six to become seven and the seven to become eight.  Etc.

Since I do not have direct acces to routers at major exhange points, I
cannot easily tell who is peering with whom.  not many people will talk
about this even privately.  yet the conscensus has been that there will be  
new members, because the alternative would mean inviting anti trust
action.  Candidates are obviously companies like BBN, netcom,
advantis, crl, AT&T and others.  Thus I hear statements like the club of 6
has now become the club of at least 15.... and presumably all is well. 
When you get big enough, you to can connect to the internet at the very
apex as demarcated by major naps in the us and soon in asia and europe.

*BUT* here is my question.  Don't private interconnects essentially
provide a new apex for the internet?  One that pushes interconnects at the
major exchange points down a level.  Sprint, MCI, UUNET, and BBN are
clearly the four largest players by market share.  All of them have
multiple private interconnects with each other.  perhaps ANS does as well.
AGIS certainly does not.  So in this sense, the "6" have not really become
15 but rather have become 4 or maybe 5.

now you may say that from a competitive point of view this makes no
difference.  perhaps.  But what if the big four no longer see the need to
upgrade their bandwidth INTO and OUT OF exchange points?  what happens to
the "secondary ten" when they get some large customers who see their
packects die between Sprints mae east router and the nearest sprint
backbone POP if that pipe is over crowded.  Will we hear them complain
about ungodly packet loss and move to the industrial strength service of
the big four who can do hot potato hand offs to each other at multiple
private exchanges around the US and increasingly around the world?  if
such is the case, how will the secondary ten ever get enough customers to
convince the top four to let them do private exchanges as well?

Is this part of an inevitable dynamic that is and will channel market
share into the hands of the top four?  Given the need of the automotive
network exchange, will it, under these conditions, certify anyone except
the top four?  One would certainly think it would certify the top 15 but
if the stratification between service at private interconnects and public
exchanges continues, could it certify anyone except the top four?


> 
> One can certainly make the argument that running large traffic
> flows through shared interconnects is bad engineering if a 
> private interconnects for such traffic are available.
> 
> /John
> 
> 
True, but what about the economic and public policy aspects of such
decisions?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -