Re: ISPACs
"Justin W. Newton" <justin@erols.com> Thu, 05 December 1996 19:49 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa09028; 5 Dec 96 14:49 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19962; 5 Dec 96 14:49 EST
Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [205.252.116.101]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id FAA14740 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 05:27:27 +1100
Received: from justin.erols.com (justin.erols.com [205.252.116.48]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA24720 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:27:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961205133200.008ff754@justin.erols.com>
X-Sender: justin@justin.erols.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 13:32:00 -0500
To: cidrd@iepg.org
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin@erols.com>
Subject: Re: ISPACs
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:44 AM 12/5/96 EST, John W. Stewart III wrote: Tony says: > > And they're dependent on you. Can you cooperate? Mebbe you personally > > can't, but I'd like to think that there are many who could and would if > > they saw the benefits. I am very capable of cooperation if there is a large benefit, what I see in your proposal, however, is a large risk with little benefit. Maybe I am missing something, but what do I, as a small ISP gain by doing this? My risks are farily apparent (at least some of them are). 1) I am dependant on competitors of mine of whom I may be somewhat unsure as to their technical ability, and there is always the possibility that they will act in an unscrupulous manner and /intentionally/ hose over my announcements. The only defense I have against this is strong legal reprecussions for failure to properly handle routing announcements and sharing of traffic. 2) If those strong legal terms /are/ in the contracts, I am suddenly open to lawsuit from my competitors (one may substitute the word competitor with peer if they so choose). If a customer feels that I am providing inadequate service they will likely choose to go to another ISP, which is bad. If a competitor feels that I am damaging their business through a technical relationship that we have they are likely to take me to court. Guess how expensive that can be? > >i'm not sure what i think of ISPACs yet, but relative to the >above exchange, the internet of *today* already has inter- >dependence between parties that don't pay each other. imagine >that i connect to ISP1, ISP1 and ISP2 peer, and My-Favorite- >Web-Site connects to ISP2. now imagine that ISP2 does >something to permanently cut itself off from ISP1. even >though it's not ISP1's fault, i would consider changing >providers (i.e., stop paying ISP1) Right, but in this case you lose connectivity to ISP2's customers. In the situation that Tony is describing if one of /our competitors/ decides to screw you, or simply doesn't have the technical ability on staff to make things work, your connectivity to every site on the internet gets screwed up. As an engineer this is something that wouldn't be hard to make go, and if the people who were involved in an ISPAC were of the caliber of skill as the people commenting on this thread I wouldn't hesitate to join one. The problem comes from the fact that there simply aren't many people at small ISP's (the under 10,000 user size), who are of that caliber, and many of the people who are are being recruited constantly by larger companies. Maybe there are people out there who want to put the fate of their company into an unstable situation. I am not one of those people. I spend a large portion of my time attempting to make certain that my network is /not/ fate shared with other people, why would one willingly put themselves in a position where they are sharing their connectivity fate with several companies who's technical ability is an unknown, and who have a direct interest in seeing me fail, and almost no gain by seeing me succeed. > >i'll grant that today's inter-dependence doesn't involve >shared address allocations, but the point is that providers' >businesses already depend to some degree on other providers >working, so it's not a *fundamental* change .. just a new >detail > >/jws > > > Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services
- ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Curtis Villamizar
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Vadim Antonov
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Stephen Stuart
- Re: ISPACs Vadim Antonov
- Re: ISPACs John W. Stewart III
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Curtis Villamizar
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Dave Siegel
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- RE: ISPACs Mathew Lodge
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Paul Resnick
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Curtis Villamizar
- Re: ISPACs Brian Carpenter CERN-CN
- Re: ISPACs Paul Resnick
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Brian Carpenter CERN-CN