The Attitude (was: the Internet Backbone)
William Allen Simpson
wsimpson at greendragon.com
Mon Apr 15 16:07:46 UTC 1996
> From: Jeremy Porter <jerry at fc.net>
> Bill, here is why you will never be taken seriously be
> any ISP/NSP. If networks can't find ways to cooperaate without
> prodecting there own interests, we all might as well give up
I'll try to remember not to take myself seriously....
This is a most unusual argument: that we should cooperate without
protecting our own interests; and if we cannot, we should give up.
Are you sure that you know what you are writing?
> THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD A SCALABLE INTERNET IS FOR PROVIDERS
> TO BE MOTIVATED BY SELF INTEREST AND ECONOMIC FACTORS.
This is contrary to your above assertion.
However, this does not match the historic record. A scalable Internet
doesn't even require the concept of "providers". Nor does it require
self interest. There are certainly other models that could be (and have
> This is exaclty an issue of customer education, If customers
> wanted good connectity they CAN find it.
And who does the education? Using what data (as the providers
themselves have refused to release it)?
May I suggest that this form of argument was advanced for rather a lot
of other fields, such as food, drugs, comparing doctors and lawyers and
their fees, and purchasing of automobiles and refrigerators. As I
remember, Consumers Union (I'm a lifetime member) was investigated at
one time as a "communist conspiracy".
This does not follow the subject of this thread, which was in regard to
(lack of) cooperation with competitors. I don't see how customer
education will affect the physical interconnections of carriers, except
as perhaps encouraging consumers to sue their providers for fraud....
> Hm.. maybe Apple should have thought a little more
> about their little T-1 link to a single provider when they
> had about 3 T-1s worth of data to send. I offer to sell
> more connectivity to Apple, but they WEREN'T interested.
I question your objectivity. Sounds like you have a personal
self-interest issue here.
By my measurements, there was no problem with the Apple T1(s). The
problem I documented was that Sprint didn't have enough bandwidth out of
Texas (specifically to Chicago in my tests, but reportedly to other
places as well) to ensure full T1 delivery for Apple while also
supplying service to others in Texas. That is, Sprint was
underprovisioned. Also, their links flapped a lot.
> They didn't care that there application/distribution model was
> broken, and breaking the net, they didn't want to fork
> out the extra bucks, or deal with the internal politics
> to put the release out on the West coast where they
> had a much higher bandwidth connection.
I disagree, as Apple DID care very much! In fact, they eventually did
put it out on other sites, including their west coast connection.
How would it have helped if they had a T3 in Texas, when Sprint couldn't
even handled another T1's worth of traffic to the same site?
How would it have helped the net if they had been multihomed? You
provide a separate link to Chicago, and load balancing between you and
> I haven't seen many reports of Sprint problems since
> Sprint put its policies in places and they had time work.
Only recently has Sprint been cooperating with the RA enough to actually
get some Sprint flapping statistics. I cannot help that you personally
have not seen them.... Why not look at them yourself?
> MCI on the other hand has been bleeding about 30% packets out of
> San Francisco, on its OWN INTERAL network for several MONTHS.
Too true. I did not mean to pick on Sprint exclusively, except where
Sean seemed to make a claim that somehow the Sprint network was somehow
operating better then others, and that it was due to his wonderful
sagacity in refusing to carry others traffic.
I have not (yet) heard the same non-cooperative attitude from MCI.
WSimpson at UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson at MorningStar.com
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
More information about the NANOG