Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the it's-the-final-countdown dept.
scoof writes: "Might be because of PSInet's financial troubles, but according to mails to NANOG-list, C&W has de-peered PSInet.
" Ah, the joys of being depeered.
Particularly sad-making bit from the list...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
This
comes from the nanog list. There's an ugly discussion of how the outage might encourage the Powers That Be to step in and "make things right." Begin quote.
RE: C&W Peering
From: David Schwartz
Date: Mon Jun 04 19:16:22 2001
Yuck. I was interviewed by the GAO a few months back (they wanted to talk
to little players about the transit market) and was worrying that the feds
wanted to mandate interconnection policies in one form or another... we
certainly don't want to encourage that kind of behavior. However, it
seems reasonable that if we can't regulate ourselves someone else is going
to do it for us.
It seems that everyone has fogotton what the "Internet" is. The Internet is
not IP, the network protocol could change and it would still be the
Internet. The Internet is not the providers, the providers could change and
it would still be the Internet.
The Internet is a spirit and a philosophy. That spirit and philosophy is of
making a good faith effort to obtain connectivity and exchange information
with anybody else who makes a similar effort. Anyone who claims to provide
'Internet access' or 'Internet service' or to be an 'Internet' product or
service without practicing that philosophy is, in my opinion, practicing
fraud.
This applies to software, hardware, and even peering. A program is
"Internet software" if it makes a good faith effort to exchange information
with anybody else who makes a similar effort, not if it happens to work over
the machines and protocols that happen to constitute the Internet today.
End quote. Well said; I agree. Me, too.
Karma-Whoring Definition
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3
Peering is the arrangement of traffic exchange between Internet service providers (ISPs). Larger ISPs with their own backbone networks agree to allow traffic from other large ISPs in exchange for traffic on their backbones. They also exchange traffic with smaller ISPs so that they can reach regional end points. Essentially, this is how a number of individual network owners put the Internet together. To do this, network owners and access providers, the ISPs, work out agreements that describe the terms and conditions to which both are subject. Bilateral peering is an agreement between two parties. Multilateral peering is an agreement between more than two parties.
Peering requires the exchange and updating of router information between the peered ISPs, typically using the Border Gateway Protocol (Border Gateway Protocol). Peering parties interconnect at network focal points such as the network access points (network access point) in the United States and at regional switching points. Initially, peering arrangements did not include an exchange of money. More recently, however, some larger ISPs have charged smaller ISPs for peering. Each major ISP generally develops a peering policy that states the terms and conditions under which it will peer with other networks for various types of traffic.
Private peering is peering between parties that are bypassing part of the public backbone network through which most Internet traffic passes. In a regional area, some ISPs exchange local peering arrangements instead of or in addition to peering with a backbone ISP. In some cases, peering charges include transit charges, or the actual line access charge to the larger network. Properly speaking, peering is simply the agreement to interconnect and exchange routing information.
Read the Nanog posts again. Cutting off peering to a provider that has no transit mean they can't see each other. Period. Unless one of them would like to pay for transit.
PSI and C&W are both tier-1's, they don't have any transit agreements with others, which means that PSI and C&W customers are entirely cut off from each other at the moment.
Considering that one of the root nameservers is situated at PSI makes the matter even worse.
-- --
Andreas
PSI was once a well-known spam haven
by
Kiwi
·
· Score: 5
Anyone who is a verteran in the anti-spam wars knows that PSI was, not too long ago, notorious for doing nothing about spammers who used PSI-owned dialup connections to connect to the internet and spam to their heart's content.
It was not uncommon, in the heyday of PSI-originated spam, for people to not allow anyone from 38.x.x.x to send email to them.
The problem with not properly handling one spammers is that it causes an ISPs reputation to go down. Now, I have not paid real close attention to what has happened at PSI since spammers stopped using their dialups as spam-originating points, but I would not be surprised that PSI reputation as a spam-friendly ISP is one of the reasons they are having the financial problems they have now.
- Sam
--
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Re:PSI was once a well-known spam haven
by
avdp
·
· Score: 2
You're talking about PSI and spam as if they are a thing of the past. I personally get about 6 piece of spam a week originating from the PSI network (most of it comes from miami for whatever reason). I got two of them today.
I am one of these sick weirdo that actually investigate and report every single piece of spam to the originating ISP, as well as to other ISPs if the spammer has a mail drop box or website.
PSI does respond to each spam report (first the canned reply, then some note saying that "action has been taken" - whatever that means). So, I don't know how that compares with their track report from way back when, but I am less than pleased about them TODAY.
Re:PSI was once a well-known spam haven
by
1010011010
·
· Score: 2
When I saw th news, my first thought was, "woohoo! less spam!"
I've been hating psinet for years.
- - - - -
-- Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Will someone explain to me...
by
EnglishTim
·
· Score: 2
What 'de-peering' means?
cheers,
Tim
Re:Will someone explain to me...
by
majcher
·
· Score: 2
From http://www.uvi.edu/InfoTech/peering.html:
""Peering" in the jargon of the Internet means to connect directly to another Internet provider for the purpose of exchange traffic between two providers without having to resort to the Internet backbone. "
De-peering, then, is disconnecting from such a relationship. Whether this is indeed the case or not here is another issue, which I'll leave to those more well informed than I...
From: Mitchell Levinn [levinn@psi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:35 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: levinn@psi.com
Subject: PSINet and C&W peering
C&W did indeed shutdown their peering connections to PSINet
this weekend. While there are many potential explanations
for their actions, I have no visibility into their decision
process. I am disappointed with their decision to disconnect.
PSINet continues to seek a resolution with C&W to restore normal
connectivity in order to avoid further negative impact to both
companies and the Internet. Their decision is hard to understand
based on the following:
- C&W and PSINet upgraded circuits used for peering between
the two networks earlier this year. C&W's recent action
seems inconsistent with the strategy that led to these
upgrades.
- PSINet's recent addition of direct private peering with several
of C&W's transit customers relieved the peering connections
between the networks of a couple hundred Mbps of traffic
(improving connectivity overall and, undoubtedly, lowering costs
for those transit customers). This is significant only because
C&W claims PSINet no longer has sufficient traffic to justify
the connections according to their published standards. In
fact, PSINet's overall traffic continues to grow.
- Most of the PSINet traffic previously destined for sites
behind C&W has alternative paths through other providers.
While this sounds like a generally good thing, especially given
the actions C&W has taken, it does make it difficult for those
that require certain traffic levels to be maintained consistently
for peering. Specifically, C&W's customers (or C&W itself) could
alter "natural" traffic flow to favor (or not) various connections
to meet their published standards (or not). PSINet demonstrated
to C&W that if naturally less favorable announcements were
preferred, PSINet could make an almost arbitrarily large (or
small) amount of traffic flow between the peers. Even so, in
C&W's opinion, PSINet will not be able to comply with their
peering policy's traffic standards. It is gratifying to note
that even without C&W peering, substantially all of the
traffic previously flowing between PSINet and C&W continues to
be delivered.
- At this time PSINet has not disabled the C&W peering interfaces
nor decommissioned any facilities. If C&W chooses to, they can
re-enable interfaces on their side and bring back the connectivity
lost between their non-transit customers and PSINet. PSINet
remains open to discuss with them a new bilateral peering
agreement if they so choose.
PSINet remains committed to servicing its customers and the Internet
with the best possible infrastructure and policies. PSINet still
maintains hundreds of peering connections with other ISPs throughout
the world. While posting about matters between PSINet and its
peering partners is not typical, the circumstances and questions
arising from C&W's decision required some clarification. Hopefully
this additional clarification helps everyone understand the current
situation.
Sounds about right, yes.
Officially, it seems C&W consider that now PSINet have depeered with a lot of the medium-sized providers such as Exodus and Abovenet (exactly what C&W just did to them;) they no longer qualify as carrying enough traffic to be a "tier 1" ISP. As an additional kicker, now that PSINet has filed for bankruptcy protection, they are no longer able to shop around for transit to replace this peering link (after all, would *you* give PSInet a new contract, knowing that under the rules you cannot cut them off for non-payment, and based on their current stability can't reasonably expect transit creditors will be high on the list for payment anytime soon.) --
If you read further back into the NANOG list, you can see that about a month and a half ago, C&W sent out notices to all of the ISPs that it de-peered (it wasn't only PSI). So PSInet knew this was going to happen a few months ago, and did not take action to get another Transit provider, so that C&W customers could reach into their network and vice-versa. This hurts both ISPs, and anyone who is trying to reach PSI. While things are probably not going so well over at PSI, obviously, with them filing Chapter 11, they knew this was coming, and didn't act, and now are trying to give C&W a black eye. Peering agreements are created so that networks of roughly equal size can trade routes/data at minimal cost to both ISPs, but when one of those ISPs grows, and the other shrinks, the agreements must be re-considered. This is a fairly normal thing in the ISP world, and the only reason that this is creating problems and news is that PSInet didn't act to find a transit provider, or work out a transit agreement with C&W.
//Phizzy
-- "Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
The fun thing is that now all C&W customers will be unable to connect to most PSI customers.
And that's not a small amount of people/sites.
Not true. Not all backbone providers have peering arrangements. This merely means that this traffic will not travel directly between the networks, but will be exchanged at the NAP (Network Access Point) routers, and possibly by other networks which have still have peering with both the companies in question. Almost certainly slower and with longer ping times, however.
Okay, I missed that point. I'd think if that was the case that the bankruptcy court (Er, PSI has filed for Chapter 11 protection, haven't they?) might have something to say about that. Or maybe not... don't know the rules exactly.
PSINet's network status page has the details - apparently 90% of the traffic is being rerouted, 10% is apparently cut off by C&W. The page does indicate that PSINet is offering to "supply service directly to C&W's customers who have been cut off". In other words, come ISP with us instead of C&W, I guess.
Apparently getting C&W's customers is the only the only way PSINet can offer relief to their own customers cut off from C&W resources, since no other help is offered in that direction.
Strange, this seems to be the first time I've seen backbone providers' peering arrangements considered a major news item. Doesn't this kind of thing, along with the establishment of new peering arrangements, happen all the time?
I would think the report, if true, means that C & W is unsatisfied with the {way that|amount of|rate at} its packets are transported on PSINet relative to the way PSI is using C & W's resources.
Other than that, I don't see why C & W would give a care what happens to PSI financially. If it closes down the peering arrangements would be beside the point.
To add to that (good explanation, by the way), what makes this more interesting is that PSInet still hosts one of the 13 root name servers (c.root-servers.net), meaning that C&W has just cut their customers off from one of the DNS roots. It's not clear how that will affect C&W's customers, but it's still not something I'd do lightly, if I were a network admin.
For starters, the PEERING arrangement is gone. There's a difference between peering and transit. Peering is done when it would be mutually beneficial for both parties to share traffic, and some arrangement regarding the cost of the line - in the case of a private peer such as this - is worked out between the two. Transit is where the ISP pays out the nose for a link to the Network provider's network, allowing the ISP to use the Network provider as an upstream to access most of the world.
Now, I work for a fairly large ISP, with a nationwide privately-owned fiber backbone. We get 16ms ping times from Maine to the Carolinas, and 70-80ms pingtimes from New York to San Francisco. And we've got TONS of peering arrangements. But there's three networks that we still aren't big enough to get transit with: Level3, UUNet, and Cable & Wireless.
Big network providers like C&W don't peer with the small fries, and if you have a peering arrangement with one of them, you're right near the top - Tier One or Two Network provider. If C&W is dropping peering for PSINet, that means that, in their opinion, PSINet isn't classed as a Top-Tier network provider anymore. And that is the sound of the bell tolling doom for any network provider out there. That's why this is news.
-- You thought that this sig was what you think that I thought you wanted me to think. I think.
And PSI and UUNET were the biggies back in 1990, so its like hearing about an old friend suddenly leaving town, for those of us who were online back then.
-- "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
>How much of PSInet's bandwidth is used by C&W's
>traffic VERSUS how much of C&W's bandwidth is >used by PSInet's traffic.
This is irrelevant. Even in the extreme case (one party a colo, the other a dialup provider), both provider's bandwidth has already been paid for by their respective customers. Sorry, I can't remember who actually pointed this out on nanog, it was over the w/e IIRC...
C&W has been dropping a lot of peers recently, there's been a busy discussion of this over the last week (and whether or not it's a short-term beancounter's move, or will actually help C&W in some obscure way.)
nanog is a fascinating place to lurk, (indeed if you find this topic interesting, read the entire, LONG, thread in the archives.) I've learned an awful lot about how the *real* networks (backbones down to leaf nodes) actually operate in from reading it. It's also fascinating to see extremely intelligent engineers, who between them built many well -known networks, wrote legendary software, and so on, fighting like schoolchildren in religious wars (securing open relays, ORBS vs. MAPS, NSP filtering on the backbone, etc etc).
The only problem is that every time it's mentioned on Slashdot, the signal::noise ratio seems to take another lurch downwards. If you haven't got a nanog-post account, you almost certainly don't need one. --
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
A clue to why C&W REALLY de-peered PSINet...
by
JonToycrafter
·
· Score: 3
At the time of the filing, made in a Manhattan bankruptcy court on May 31, the company had $2.1 billion in assets and $4.3 billion in debt. The company's main creditor is Wilmington Trust Company, which holds around $2.8 billion worth of PSINet bonds. The list also includes vendors like Cisco, Lucent, HP and EMC, which are owed for equipment, and carriers like Broadwing,
Cable & Wireless and Metromedia Fiber Networks, owed for fiber leases and other services.
As a customer of PSINet, I doubt they're going to make it. They have a team of spin doctors for their customers, but mine has yet to return my phone calls. Now THAT is the kind of customer service I like to get from a company that should be kissing its remaining customers' feet.
Slashdot Mirror
Begin quote.
RE: C&W Peering
From: David Schwartz
Date: Mon Jun 04 19:16:22 2001
It seems that everyone has fogotton what the "Internet" is. The Internet is not IP, the network protocol could change and it would still be the Internet. The Internet is not the providers, the providers could change and it would still be the Internet.
The Internet is a spirit and a philosophy. That spirit and philosophy is of making a good faith effort to obtain connectivity and exchange information with anybody else who makes a similar effort. Anyone who claims to provide 'Internet access' or 'Internet service' or to be an 'Internet' product or service without practicing that philosophy is, in my opinion, practicing fraud.
This applies to software, hardware, and even peering. A program is "Internet software" if it makes a good faith effort to exchange information with anybody else who makes a similar effort, not if it happens to work over the machines and protocols that happen to constitute the Internet today.
End quote. Well said; I agree. Me, too.
peering
Peering is the arrangement of traffic exchange between Internet service providers (ISPs). Larger ISPs with their own backbone networks agree to allow traffic from other large ISPs in exchange for traffic on their backbones. They also exchange traffic with smaller ISPs so that they can reach regional end points. Essentially, this is how a number of individual network owners put the Internet together. To do this, network owners and access providers, the ISPs, work out agreements that describe the terms and conditions to which both are subject. Bilateral peering is an agreement between two parties. Multilateral peering is an agreement between more than two parties.
Peering requires the exchange and updating of router information between the peered ISPs, typically using the Border Gateway Protocol (Border Gateway Protocol). Peering parties interconnect at network focal points such as the network access points (network access point) in the United States and at regional switching points. Initially, peering arrangements did not include an exchange of money. More recently, however, some larger ISPs have charged smaller ISPs for peering. Each major ISP generally develops a peering policy that states the terms and conditions under which it will peer with other networks for various types of traffic.
Private peering is peering between parties that are bypassing part of the public backbone network through which most Internet traffic passes. In a regional area, some ISPs exchange local peering arrangements instead of or in addition to peering with a backbone ISP. In some cases, peering charges include transit charges, or the actual line access charge to the larger network. Properly speaking, peering is simply the agreement to interconnect and exchange routing information.
:)
hawk
Is True.
Read the Nanog posts again. Cutting off peering to a provider that has no transit mean they can't see each other. Period. Unless one of them would like to pay for transit.
kashani
- Why is the ninja... so deadly?
PSI and C&W are both tier-1's, they don't have any transit agreements with others, which means that PSI and C&W customers are entirely cut off from each other at the moment.
Considering that one of the root nameservers is situated at PSI makes the matter even worse.
-- Andreas
It was not uncommon, in the heyday of PSI-originated spam, for people to not allow anyone from 38.x.x.x to send email to them.
The problem with not properly handling one spammers is that it causes an ISPs reputation to go down. Now, I have not paid real close attention to what has happened at PSI since spammers stopped using their dialups as spam-originating points, but I would not be surprised that PSI reputation as a spam-friendly ISP is one of the reasons they are having the financial problems they have now.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
What 'de-peering' means?
cheers,
Tim
Man, wish I had mod points. Great explanation.
-- Veni, vidi, dormivi
FWIW, this just hit NANOG list.
From: Mitchell Levinn [levinn@psi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:35 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: levinn@psi.com
Subject: PSINet and C&W peering
C&W did indeed shutdown their peering connections to PSINet
this weekend. While there are many potential explanations
for their actions, I have no visibility into their decision
process. I am disappointed with their decision to disconnect.
PSINet continues to seek a resolution with C&W to restore normal
connectivity in order to avoid further negative impact to both
companies and the Internet. Their decision is hard to understand
based on the following:
- C&W and PSINet upgraded circuits used for peering between
the two networks earlier this year. C&W's recent action
seems inconsistent with the strategy that led to these
upgrades.
- PSINet's recent addition of direct private peering with several
of C&W's transit customers relieved the peering connections
between the networks of a couple hundred Mbps of traffic
(improving connectivity overall and, undoubtedly, lowering costs
for those transit customers). This is significant only because
C&W claims PSINet no longer has sufficient traffic to justify
the connections according to their published standards. In
fact, PSINet's overall traffic continues to grow.
- Most of the PSINet traffic previously destined for sites
behind C&W has alternative paths through other providers.
While this sounds like a generally good thing, especially given
the actions C&W has taken, it does make it difficult for those
that require certain traffic levels to be maintained consistently
for peering. Specifically, C&W's customers (or C&W itself) could
alter "natural" traffic flow to favor (or not) various connections
to meet their published standards (or not). PSINet demonstrated
to C&W that if naturally less favorable announcements were
preferred, PSINet could make an almost arbitrarily large (or
small) amount of traffic flow between the peers. Even so, in
C&W's opinion, PSINet will not be able to comply with their
peering policy's traffic standards. It is gratifying to note
that even without C&W peering, substantially all of the
traffic previously flowing between PSINet and C&W continues to
be delivered.
- At this time PSINet has not disabled the C&W peering interfaces
nor decommissioned any facilities. If C&W chooses to, they can
re-enable interfaces on their side and bring back the connectivity
lost between their non-transit customers and PSINet. PSINet
remains open to discuss with them a new bilateral peering
agreement if they so choose.
PSINet remains committed to servicing its customers and the Internet
with the best possible infrastructure and policies. PSINet still
maintains hundreds of peering connections with other ISPs throughout
the world. While posting about matters between PSINet and its
peering partners is not typical, the circumstances and questions
arising from C&W's decision required some clarification. Hopefully
this additional clarification helps everyone understand the current
situation.
-Mitch Levinn
PSINet
Sounds about right, yes. ;) they no longer qualify as carrying enough traffic to be a "tier 1" ISP. As an additional kicker, now that PSINet has filed for bankruptcy protection, they are no longer able to shop around for transit to replace this peering link (after all, would *you* give PSInet a new contract, knowing that under the rules you cannot cut them off for non-payment, and based on their current stability can't reasonably expect transit creditors will be high on the list for payment anytime soon.)
Officially, it seems C&W consider that now PSINet have depeered with a lot of the medium-sized providers such as Exodus and Abovenet (exactly what C&W just did to them
--
-=DaveHowe=-
If you read further back into the NANOG list, you can see that about a month and a half ago, C&W sent out notices to all of the ISPs that it de-peered (it wasn't only PSI). So PSInet knew this was going to happen a few months ago, and did not take action to get another Transit provider, so that C&W customers could reach into their network and vice-versa. This hurts both ISPs, and anyone who is trying to reach PSI. While things are probably not going so well over at PSI, obviously, with them filing Chapter 11, they knew this was coming, and didn't act, and now are trying to give C&W a black eye. Peering agreements are created so that networks of roughly equal size can trade routes/data at minimal cost to both ISPs, but when one of those ISPs grows, and the other shrinks, the agreements must be re-considered. This is a fairly normal thing in the ISP world, and the only reason that this is creating problems and news is that PSInet didn't act to find a transit provider, or work out a transit agreement with C&W.
//Phizzy
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
Not true. Not all backbone providers have peering arrangements. This merely means that this traffic will not travel directly between the networks, but will be exchanged at the NAP (Network Access Point) routers, and possibly by other networks which have still have peering with both the companies in question. Almost certainly slower and with longer ping times, however.
Okay, I missed that point. I'd think if that was the case that the bankruptcy court (Er, PSI has filed for Chapter 11 protection, haven't they?) might have something to say about that. Or maybe not... don't know the rules exactly.
Apparently getting C&W's customers is the only the only way PSINet can offer relief to their own customers cut off from C&W resources, since no other help is offered in that direction.
I would think the report, if true, means that C & W is unsatisfied with the {way that|amount of|rate at} its packets are transported on PSINet relative to the way PSI is using C & W's resources.
Other than that, I don't see why C & W would give a care what happens to PSI financially. If it closes down the peering arrangements would be beside the point.
As a customer of PSINet, I doubt they're going to make it. They have a team of spin doctors for their customers, but mine has yet to return my phone calls. Now THAT is the kind of customer service I like to get from a company that should be kissing its remaining customers' feet.
When Country & Western don't wantcha no more.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American