Sprint peering policy

Wed Jul 3 00:51:14 UTC 2002

I don't post here much but since i have been asked a direct 
question.... i will give an answer and a factoid or two and ask a 
question or two of my own

>Perhaps we need NANOG-OldFarts mailing list?

yes  -says one old fart

how about a list with a charter of discussing  industry changes  that 
might find some islands of stability in  the on going industry 
collapse? one that examines some of the fundamental ways in which the 
economics of the industry is changing?

>T3 lines were technically
>available and priced by 1990; nobody had the money or customer demand
>to justify getting them.  They were being used by telcos to upgrade
>their POTS services,

for the internet the T-3 backbone upgrade was the highly relevant part.

ANS was formed as a public private partnership to give IBM an 
opportunity for a test bed (via the NSFNet backbone) to develop 
hardware that could route IP packets at 45 megs.  The upgrade was 
announced in early 1991 but it was a LONG time (late 92 early 93 
before ANS was moving packets at that speed.  (See brock meeks expose 
of merits claims on the T3 NsfNet backbone that ran in the july 7 
1992 issue of communications daily.)

>  >Are you talking about Net99 here?
>
>I can't even remember what year Net99 kicked off...
>Must have been what, 1994?  I was chatting with
>Joe Stroup by cellphone from my inlaws place
>during their pre-launch nationwide tour, and the
>inlaws moved in there in 1994.

Historical footnote - I was the person who introduced joe Stroup to 
karl Denninger.... I think in the summer of 1993....  maybe it was 
spring 94.

>
>Yes... Cook report 3.07 summary, Sept/Oct 94,
>seems to confirm that timing.

yes stroup and denninger announced their plans at or around the time 
of the CIX meeting in september

>Announced late 94,
>rolled out early 95.  [Side note: Gordon, for historical
>purposes, would it be unreasonable if we asked you to
>make the full reports freely available if they're
>older than say 5 years?  3 years?  Or are you
>still making money off the archaic gathering dust
>ones ... 8-) ]

Since YOU ASKED.  When Creative Commons goes live  in the fall I 
believe that pretty much everything you have just asked about will be 
available there under a public domain but no commercial use license.

>
>1995 is not going back nearly far enough.
>
>I'm talking about pre-CIX (remember that?).

CIX was announced at my Feb 14 1991 OTA workshop.... by susan estrada 
and bill schraeder...rick adams was supposed to be there but was 
sick..... al weis was there...cix was a move against ANS

>Pre-NAPs.  Pre-any-telcos-routing-IP.
>
>Man, 1992-4 were busy years, though.
>
>
>-george william herbert
>gherbert at retro.com

Finally I'd like to ask a question in return.  I am trying to look at 
what will grow up on the ashes of the current industry collapse.  We 
are beginning to see gigabit ethernet over municipally owned dark 
fiber networks.  Fiber to the home is beginning to appear in a few 
isolated areas.  World Wide Packets has a business model predicated 
on that. As more build outs continue in places like quebec, and grant 
county washington and provo utah, ashland oregon,  stockholm and 
other places around the globe, you have a potential new business 
opportunity for folk to use the Internet for the delivery of 
bandwidth intensive content and services to these municipally owned 
networks.

As bandwidth prices plunge this model LOOKs attractive until it runs 
into the reality of the cost of tier one transit.  That cost, i 
suspect, renders it of doubtful viability.

With regard to this  issue however Paul Vixie's comments on peering 
have been especially interesting.  Are there folk with adequate 
routes and connectivity that would undertake to form a network that 
might be independent of the current internet  core back bone of what 
(112,000 routes?) on top of which sit the half dozen or so Tier one 
players that peer primarily with each other and demand transit $$$ 
from everyone  else?  Web and email stay on the legacy backbone...new 
services migrate to a backbone with a cost structure unencumbered by 
the tier one oligopolists?

Now i realize there may be plenty of issues that render this 
suggestion absurd.  But i sense from the recent peering discussion 
here and from other conversations i have had that there is a fair 
amount of discontent with the current tier one peering oligopoly and 
that some folk are exploring ideas for  evolution  given current 
market conditions.

Since this does not mesh well with the operational charter of NANOG, 
i think we likely need to take any discussion elsewhere.  Anyone who 
has ideas, means and interests to discuss these issues please mail me 
off list.

Yes this does fit in with other things that I am researching and 
writing about.  see  http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml   There is 
plenty to lament about what has happened to all of us.  However, I 
think that it is useful to look ahead at how we may eventually climb 
out this morass.  IP packets and phones will not go away.  Most of 
the companies currently operating in this space will.

PS. Anyone interested in  trekking in Nepal in October please let me 
know off list.  eg http://cookreport.com/everest.shtml

-- 
========================================================
The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609)
882-2572 (phone & fax) cook at cookreport.com  Subscription info & 
prices at   http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml    Summary of 
content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml 
Here Comes Asset Based Telecom
A 120 page  - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml
========================================================