Re: ISPACs

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

   Right, so instead of my customers having to renumber if I want to leave my
   upstream provider, my customers have to renumber if I want to leave the
   ISPAC I am in.  To use your words, "just like today".

That's true.  However, if your customers want to change to another
provider, they may be able to do so without renumbering (modulo sufficient
local aggregation).

   1) I am buying bandwidth from the person running an interconnect, in which
   case they become my provider, "just like today".

And this person works for you indirectly, through the ISPAC administration,
so they report to you.  So you exert control over it.  Unlike today.

   2) Other members of the ISPAC's data cross my network to get to the ISPAC
   interconnect, and my traffic transits their network to get to the
   interconnect, 

Only if you take the mutual transit model.  If you're sensitive to this,
you should pursue the multiple independent interconnect model, as I
suggested.

   effectively allowing my competitors to use my potentially
   better connectivity, and I become dependant on their network to make
   certain that my users connectivity isn't affected.  I believe that I
   covered the reasons that people may be uncomfortable with that in detail
   before.

And it effectively allows you to use your competitors potentially better
connectivity.  And they become dependent on your network to make certain
that their users connectivity isn't affected.  

Sounds to me that you're not willing to trust.  Even if there are
contracts.  That's ok by me, but I don't think that's the norm.

   Yes, and today I do not enter into agreements with my direct competitors
   where They have the ability to destroy connectivity for all of my customers
   to the entire internet, 

They do not have that ability if you either maintain your own upstream
connection or you use a common upstream connection.  Note that today they
have that capability and you do NOT have the agreement.  So.... it seems
that legal agreements make you less comfortable, not more.

   unless I am buying transi from them, and even then
   it is a deal between my comapny and a single company who I selected, not
   some whacked consortium where I may or may not have say as to who has the
   ability to affect my traffic.  

You clearly have say: you join, you vote (assuming that's the political
model).  If you really don't like it, you vote with your feet.

   Yes, BGP peers /could/ do the same thing to
   me, but its a lot easier for me to turn off a peering session than
   instantaneously renumber my network.

Excuse me, but anyone can hose you even not being a peer by simply
injecting your prefixes from a black hole.  I can take my handy-dandy WG
packet generator and my T3 and take you out from wherever.  So it's a big
bad world out there regardless.  At least with a piece of paper, you have a
leg to stand on in court....

   Yes, but such a lawsuit would likely be considered frivolous.  Unless I was
   maliciously attacking my competitor via ping floods or something of the
   like, it would be quite difficult for them to launch a lawsuit that would
   be considered other than frivilous in a US court.  

So I guess I'm unclear on what you're worry is.  If it's not malicious
conduct, is it only incompetent conduct?  If so, why does the common
interconnect model not fix things?

   What happens when my routers have problems (and
   this is something that has happened on every complex backbone I have ever
   seen)?  

Hopefully they call you instead of suing you.  Kinda like they should be
doing right now.  ;-)

   Until such a document exists we are wasting our time on this
   proposal, noone will use it.  

Even if such a document exists, no one will use the document.  They'll want
their own.  Geeze, you don't spend much time with lawyers do you?  You
haven't seen the "well, this document won't do at all until I add some
gratuitous changes and billable hours"?

   Tony, why don't you go propose this on
   inet-access where all of the people who would actually become members of
   these ISPACs actually are, instead of over here on cidrd where most of the
   members already receive space directly from the regional registry of their
   choice?

One hurdle at a time, thank you.  ;-)

Tony