North American Network Operators Group

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

inter-NOC communications (was:Re: Definition of Congestion)

  • From: dave o'leary
  • Date: Mon Jan 31 18:35:53 2000

Attempts to "standardize" inter-NOC communication happened a couple of
times in the early 90's in the IETF, but it got too ugly, with too many
barriers (basically people not wanting to expose dirty laundry). I fear
that attempts to do so now when the providers are *really* competing with
each other (as opposed to back in the old daze when we were all
friends :-) will suffer the same fate, other than on a pairwise basis between
NOCs that cooperate well with each other anyway.


At 01:19 PM 1/30/00 +0000, Sam Thomas wrote:

On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 12:35:18AM -0800, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Should the Internet follow the nuclear and power industry and come up with
> a set of standarized terms for different degrees of events: blackout, brownout,
> flicker, etc. Or follow the telecommunication industry which uses a single
> word, congestion, for most problems.

<sigh> it took this long for someone to ask that question in a public place?

I think we should go further than that, and develop an internet standard
for noc-noc communications. at least some sort of bcp, so that those who
conform can know what to expect when calling a peer (in the literal, not
necessarily BGP sense) noc who also claims to conform to such an ad-hoc
"standard". for instance, it would be nice to consistently be able to get
a peer noc to open a ticket on reported troubles, get them to cooperate
in tracking security (i.e. DoS attacks) problems, etc. in 30 years, the
ability for computers to converse with eachother and negotiate reasonably
has improved exponentially. there are still humans sitting behind them
however, who still have problems with this after several thousand years
of evolution.

$0.02 +/- 0.02


Sam Thomas
Geek Mercenary