From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout01.eigbox.net (bosmailout01.eigbox.net [66.96.184.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A2FF3CB38 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from bosmailscan01.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.1]) by bosmailout01.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1rQe7Y-00025O-HZ for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:56:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alum.mit.edu; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Reply-To: Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=y6cqkJPqWdiqjEEGoTyox0iKDRnh/ALy8o+pz1NSVIo=; b=CGydknMG/5cbzziVQIiq3vM+LQ PlEKV3M9N5EFOwub1t2lOrm/lx2+o+rErZo/Ry2pGk7Ppl8OZsG6CGfxuG6gr9J442/QxhFtrODfE bdm1dswPf7VQ0HzhYYqv+sytCuE0yXGcRaryMAEah/HEtAMYzVIghM3urx8lVDKX7OI/r4OnhTWaz innMtWwVYCoVZ9k6QOGvToApbWUP62fngYC9rkV8UNUzmOUuuzlXAXFHCdxghw4Wv4i+Mr1E7q5UU 6Y8BhwecW3md4ZW11FHnjeCkRol0A5Jl0MoJYB9oXRh9dz+kanOTD3Z7utdYUr8Y5XeVgdyCx6pzN s079s6QQ==; Received: from [10.115.3.32] (helo=bosimpout12) by bosmailscan01.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1rQe7Y-0005hD-9z for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:56:36 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp05.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.5]) by bosimpout12 with id cRwZ2B00506Zqne01RwclF; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:56:36 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=dOg9ZNRb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=eBvjjtMVdWwtQGedh7GyLg==:117 a=tKttg/DTfI8zZz0UFxdR5w==:17 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=dEuoMetlWLkA:10 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=6z6WNosn9prcAOSMVywA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 Received: from c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([73.158.253.41]:49509 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp05.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1rQe7U-0000t4-Oe for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:56:33 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Dick Roy" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?'Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?pects_heard_this_time!'?= References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 17:56:32 -0800 Organization: SRA Message-ID: <9AA43400ADE04EA0A0391A757CA61B40@SRA6> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AdpKXyVcrCeNDThaR1KFG5qfMFPnIQAG2Eaw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE X-EN-UserInfo: f809475445fb8041985048e338e1a001:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dickroy@intellicommunications.com Sender: "Dick Roy" X-EN-OrigIP: 73.158.253.41 X-EN-OrigHost: c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net Subject: Re: [NNagain] are you Bill Woodcock? X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 01:56:37 -0000 Bill, Thabnks for the very cogent explanation of the realities of IXPs. = Awesome! If you do end up having that virtual chat, I'd love to be a "fly on the wall" for that! :):):) Cheers, RR -----Original Message----- From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf = Of Bill Woodcock via Nnagain Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 2:39 PM To: thejoff@gmail.com; Network Neutrality is back! Let=B4s make the = technical aspects heard this time! Cc: Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: [NNagain] are you Bill Woodcock? > On Jan 18, 2024, at 22:51, le berger des photons via Nnagain wrote: > First I've ever seen the term IXP. It seems interesting. Can you = point me to some documentation at a level which only requires the ability to = read in english? Lots of what I've seen here has initials for things which I haven't even been able to decode. > I've been connecting 200 families in a 25 km radius to internet via 8 fiber optic connections for the last 20 years. > I've been thinking of inviting others to participate, help them get going. > Thinking how it might be useful to provide each client two accesses. = one to the global internet, one to a local network which isn't being = watched by big brother. > Does any of this warrant my looking further into IXP technology? Hi, Jay. I=92m afraid I=92m really bad at getting all this stuff written down, = though I know it would be useful. I am planning to write a doctoral thesis on exactly this topic (the societal and economic impact of Internet = exchange points) for Universite Paris 8 next year, but that will need to be a bit more academic than practical, to satisfy, you know, academia. So, really basically, it sounds like you=92re already building an = internet exchange. Internet exchanges are where Internet bandwidth comes from. Internet service providers bring Internet bandwidth from IXPs to the = places where people want to use it: their homes, their offices, their phones. Internet bandwidth is free _at_ the exchange, but transport costs money. Speed times distance equals cost. So the cost of Internet bandwidth is proportional to the speed and the distance from IXPs. Plus a profit = margin for the Internet service provider. So, if one Internet user wants to talk to another Internet user, = generally they hand off their packet to an Internet service provider, who takes it = to an exchange, and hands it off to another Internet service provider, who delivers it to the second user. When the second user wants to reply, = the process is reversed, but the two Internet service providers may choose a different exchange for the hand-off: since each is economically = incentivized to carry the traffic the shortest possible distance (to minimize cost, = speed x distance =3D cost), the first ISP will always choose the IXP that=92s = nearest the first user, for the hand-off, leaving the second ISP a longer = distance to carry the packet. Then, when their situations are reversed, the = second ISP will choose the IXP nearest the second user, leaving the first ISP = to carry the packet a longer distance. This only works (and achieves =93fairness=94) if there=92s an IXP near = each of the two users (or they=92re both close to the same IXP). If there=92s no = IXP close to the second user, they wind up paying for long-haul transport in both directions, and their share of the costs are higher than the first = user=92s. So, ISPs (and users) are economically incentivized to build small IXPs = all over the place. IXPs are only maximally effective if they really are free. If they = start running up costs, which have to be defrayed, and placing the burden of = those costs on the ISPs which try to use them, then they increase the _average = per bit delivery cost_ or APBDC of the bandwidth, making it less affordable, = and causing ISPs to seek more affordable bandwidth elsewhere. So an = effective IXP is a cheap IXP. =93Gold plating=94 IXPs kills them. Fancy is bad, = simple is good. In the 1990s, there were a diversity of kinds of IXPs=85 we were all = trying different experiments, and nobody had settled on a single best way of = doing it yet. Then, gradually, it all narrowed down to a single = most-efficient model, and all IXPs were an Ethernet switch in a closet, surrounded by = BGP routers which had one port facing the switch, and one or a small number = of ports facing their ISP=92s network. But in the last ten years or so, = things have started to become a little more diverse again, so what you=92re = doing would probably be recognized as a form of IXP by many people. Economic compartmentalization is really important in IXPs. Some people = call this =93neutrality,=94 but that=92s a difficult word to define, because = it means different things to different people. What=92s important is that the = IXP is a shared, communal, enterprise, and the group of parties who are = collaborating to make it go are often business competitors, which means that they need = a very simple system that doesn=92t require that they trust each other = very much. So, if it handles money at all, it=92s very hard to get over that = trust threshold. If it has complicated rules or governance, it has difficulty getting over that trust threshold. Simple is good. So, if you=92re thinking of making things more complicated (commercial = access (=93transit=94) to the global Internet), that=92s fine, and may be = exactly the right thing to do, under the circumstances=85 but you should be very = careful to compartmentalize that, and its finances and risks, into a separate = entity than the fiber, or the =93exchange=94 or whatever else you=92re doing. = Otherwise people will worry that you=92re going to use fees from one thing to = subsidize another, which will compete with their interests. That=92s not = hypothetical, that=92s actually one of the most common ways IXPs fail: they lose their neutrality, and lose the trust of their participants, who form a = competing exchange nearby, and all move over to it. All of this is generally easier to explain in a dialog. I=92m in Paris, = so happy to chat with you on the phone, if your spoken English is better = than my spoken French. -Bill _______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain