Jonathan -
As I mentioned earlier, it looks like the BBC managed to
mangle your point about transit relationships fairly
thoroughly. I think Patrick caught your quote, but the
gist of your point has been lost.
Lucy Lynch
Director, Trust and Identity Initiatives
Internet Society (ISOC )
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:44:21 -0400
From: Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:27:39 +0100
From: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com>
Big up the Nanog community, you do the net proud...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8163190.stm
First showed up on NANOG 7 hours ago, but it was a fun read.
Clearly the article has little connection with reality. I am not an
unpaid volunteer and neither were most or all of those involved. The
idea that just because the traffic does not originate or terminate on my
net means that working on solving a problem is altruism is pretty silly.
My fav part:
<quote>
"That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a many
as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data around having
no contractual or legal obligation to the original sender or to the
receiver."
</quote>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
Kinda makes you wonder about all those other TED talks, huh?
And NANOG was not really involved though several of those that were are
active in NANOG.
Well, one could argue that NANOG _is_ its members.
Yeah, a stretch, but I'm trying. :-)
--
TTFN,
patrick
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:56:36 -0400
From: Deepak Jain <dee...@ai.net>
To: Jim Mercer <j...@reptiles.org>, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: RE: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link
to
the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at
3
or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
they likely have contracts or obligations with their immediate
neighbours,
which is basically why the system continues to work.
I'm not sure if this is the benefit for the lurkers or the old guys, or will
eventually get recycled in the press and give me a headache, but here goes.
I think what people seem to keep skipping over is the concept that packets
generated from "A" go to ISP "B" who has relationship with C... to pass
packets to "Z". From the point of view of "C" all packets from "B" (including
"A") are just "B"'s traffic. It's not as simple as I have an agreement with
my neighbor and we pass slop around.
If I am "C", whatever my neighbor is moving is essentially of equal value in
my agreement with my neighbor (until one of us chooses to renegotiate it:
i.e. peering dispute, whatever). No matter which "A" is sending it to "B". I
don't *really* get the option to pick and choose on a per packet basis.
In the case of three intervening networks, each is aggregating their
customers' traffic and passing the relevant portions to the neighboring
network (presumably for *their* aggregated customers' traffic).
This is, in some ways, fundamentally different than the US highway system,
where if I'm driving a truck between one state and another, the next state
(even though they have interconnection agreements) can set different rules on
me than the state I just left. I know this happens with (for example)
Michigan and its neighbors.
In the Internet context, my neighbor is responsible to abide by our agreement
and prevent the traffic coming over to me from violating that agreement and I
am allowed to police and enforce that border any way I want.
What this means is that if "A" is affected by something, from my perspective
as "C", "B" is absolutely authoritative for the discussion about "A"'s
traffic and what to do with it. (No matter how many "B"'s A has contracted
with, B and C do not have to ask A for permission for ways/means/methods to
move packets). We can agree to drop it on the floor, give it priority or
special treatment or generally just ignore it and let the packets pass the
way they will.
This how the so-called community "volunteers" have so much ability to affect
and improve the system. Everyone operates in their own fiefdom owing little
allegiance (other than those of commerce and equity) to its neighbors. I may
charge a tariff to enter my fiefdom, but once packets enter my fiefdom, they
are my packets. I protect them, and try to speed them on their way without
impediment and I negotiate with others on their behalf to improve their
happiness.
And continuing the micro-economics analogy... this is why periodic wars break
out between larger fiefdoms and there is little way to influence them to play
for the "good" of the system. The only way to influence them is for their own
good.
DJ
P.S. I've been scratching my head and wondering what this TED thing is all
about, it seems like a big cheerleading thing..
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:38:24 -0400
From: William Herrin <herrin-na...@dirtside.com>
To: Jim Mercer <j...@reptiles.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Jim Mercer<j...@reptiles.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
My fav part:
<quote>
"That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a
many as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data
around having no contractual or legal obligation to the original
sender or to the receiver."
</quote>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to
the sender or receiver. Â my packets from office to home can traverse at 3
or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
If I pay you to send my packets and you pay bob to send my packets
then I have paid bob to send my packets. Transitive property of
payment. ;-)
'Couse bob doesn't pay claire anything but denise pays claire to
receive packets for denise, my packets are intended for denise and bob
and claire have a peering agreement in which they agree to swap
already-paid traffic directly rather than both paying ed to do it for
them.
So it ain't free and at each step there is a contractual obligation to
at least one of the sender or receiver.
Regards,
Bill
--
William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:50:44 -0700
From: Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net>
To: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:27, Jim Mercer <j...@reptiles.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
My fav part:
<quote>
"That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a
many as 25 or 30 hops with the intervening entities passing the data
around having no contractual or legal obligation to the original
sender or to the receiver."
</quote>
How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to
the sender or receiver. my packets from office to home can traverse at 3
or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
they likely have contracts or obligations with their immediate neighbours,
which is basically why the system continues to work.
I honestly expected someone to mention this when I wrote the original post,
but I had hopes no one would. :-)
It is clear the intent of the TED speaker was the intermediaries were
transiting packets out of the good of their hearts.
Allow me to illustrate:
The postal system is amazing! You can mail a letter from the US to England
and the "intermediate" carrier will deliver the mail even though they have NO
contract with you or the recipient! How awesome is that?
This is not fantasy. You give it to the USPS, who will hand it to DHL, who
will hand it to Royal Mail, who will hand it to the recipient. Does _anyone_
comment on the lack of your contract with DHL? Is anyone surprised it still
works? Is it worthy of a TED talk?
--
TTFN,
patrick
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:27:30 +0300
From: Raymond Macharia <rmacha...@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website
Hi
To summarize the article "Nanogers you do a great job"
On the rest we can safely say we are probably more clueful as to what
goes on and we can try as much to correct but I doubt anyone will want
to put all the gory details in any form of press
Raymond
On 7/22/09, andrew.wallace <andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Big up the Nanog community, you do the net proud...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8163190.stm
--
Sent from my mobile device
Raymond Macharia
