Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

Re: Internet partitioning event regulations

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

kloch at kl

Nov 5, 2008, 3:04 PM

Post #1 of 3 (305 views)
Permalink

Re: Internet partitioning event regulations

William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon[at]cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Lamar Owen wrote:
>>>>> There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
>>>>> list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
>>>>> government run and regulated backbone);
>> Which government?
>
> First, let me say that I think peering regulation is a terrible idea.
> No matter how cleverly you plan it, the result will be that fewer
> small companies can participate. That's the character of regulation:
> compliance creates more barriers to entry than it removes.

The problem isn't that which networks don't peer with each other it is
that some networks don't buy transit from anyone. That is what
causes partition related outages and distortions in peering policies.
If regulation could be part of the 'solution' then that would be the
place to start.

But despite the flaws with the current environment it really isn't that
bad and any regulation would likely be a disaster for the industry.

- Kevin

p.caci at seabone

Nov 6, 2008, 12:47 AM

Post #2 of 3 (284 views)
Permalink

Re: Internet partitioning event regulations [In reply to]

:-> "Lamar" == Lamar Owen <lowen[at]pari.edu> writes:

> Charles Wyble charles[at]thewybles.com wrote:
>> Lamar Owen wrote:
>> > There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this list) to limit the events:
>> > 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a government run and regulated backbone);

>> Right. But what do we want this to look like?

> Well, since I've already stepped out on a limb, here goes my try
> at a rough outline of what such a regulation might look like
> (with the caveat that this is likely too simple to actually make
> it as a regulation):

[...]

> 2.) Allocate regulatory responsibility and enforcement authority
> to an entity. I would suggest the FCC would be appropriate.
> (This outline might then be the start of a 47 CFR 221 or
> similar).

[...]

> 6.) Mandate that all transit-free Internet carriers shall
> maintain peering arrangements with all other transit-free
> Internet carriers to maintain a complete Internet (citing some
> law that makes a 'complete Internet' a national security matter,
> or somesuch, and belongs in 47 CFR 221 as a result).

[...]

> 8.) Authorize the issuance of a 'Tier 1 Internet Provider'
> license (that must be renewed periodically, with documentation
> supporting the Tier 1 status) to participating transit-free
> Internet carriers (for a fee to cover the opex).

> 9.) Authorize the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to enforce.

err... do you realize there's about 6.4 * 10^9 other people outside of
the USA, don't you?

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierfrancesco Caci | Network & System Administrator - INOC-DBA: 6762*PFC
p.caci[at]seabone.net | Telecom Italia Sparkle - http://etabeta.noc.seabone.net/
Linux clarabella 2.6.15-29-server #1 SMP Mon Sep 24 17:37:57 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux

LarrySheldon at cox

Nov 10, 2008, 7:24 AM

Post #3 of 3 (256 views)
Permalink

Re: Internet partitioning event regulations [In reply to]

Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:

> err... do you realize there's about 6.4 * 10^9 other people outside of
> the USA, don't you?

Caution: I was "admonished" by the cabal for saying just that.

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com