From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from secmail.pch.net (secmail.pch.net [206.220.231.87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BF613CB38 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 17:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from secmail.pch.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by secmail.pch.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TGHjF3dGpz4xVTn for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:38:57 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: secmail.pch.net (amavisd-new); dkim=pass reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=pch.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=pch.net; h= x-mailer:message-id:in-reply-to:to:references:date:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:from; s= secmail_dkim; t=1705617536; x=1708209537; bh=B52scXHw8m9j7UiIPEL w1ncdveRJn+QM5Yq1z9pOgTo=; b=ICUTDFZpabHYXqEj6dwu2JXQ7XGTtYQ//Xg Tv4fW4lpmzSux0LRsIbpQwoge3XSaeiCfXfhHYaGAht0jGu9OxbzZDrp90L0/w/1 Ja2uQmgsomOycCx44dRmWX/bIIfd2br7MC0vqR5Pl9uegMRinV6xlRgB60WGp0hw KM/OEE0gB2Gz2R5pAag8PQahwmuChM65+js+0rj/v66dj8QJu449ZEYbklOblg0L H0/wdEeHxb3TnvIeM0QjjfLrcQ5zH6FgbMDHwKUPSy2JNSXH3euK7wkFHRxqr4/E 3EUtSEe5vpXymvWxRTnUZlSPjxn8vyyHtoblZsb70lUBIDXB9tA== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at secmail.pch.net Received: from secmail.pch.net ([127.0.0.1]) by secmail.pch.net (secmail.pch.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id QoOz5RzOMMvR for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:38:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [66.185.123.190]) by secmail.pch.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4TGHjC4QtWz4xVTc; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:38:55 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woodcock Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.400.31\)) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 23:38:53 +0100 References: To: thejoff@gmail.com, =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.400.31) 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: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 22:38:58 -0000 > 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=E2=80=99m afraid I=E2=80=99m 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=E2=80=99re 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=E2=80=99s 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 =E2=80=9Cfairness=E2=80=9D) if there=E2=80=99= s an IXP near each of the two users (or they=E2=80=99re both close to = the same IXP). If there=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99s. 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. =E2=80=9CGold = plating=E2=80=9D IXPs kills them. Fancy is bad, simple is good. In the 1990s, there were a diversity of kinds of IXPs=E2=80=A6 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=E2=80=99s network. = But in the last ten years or so, things have started to become a little = more diverse again, so what you=E2=80=99re doing would probably be = recognized as a form of IXP by many people. Economic compartmentalization is really important in IXPs. Some people = call this =E2=80=9Cneutrality,=E2=80=9D but that=E2=80=99s a difficult = word to define, because it means different things to different people. = What=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99t require that they trust each other very = much. So, if it handles money at all, it=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99re thinking of making things more complicated = (commercial access (=E2=80=9Ctransit=E2=80=9D) to the global Internet), = that=E2=80=99s fine, and may be exactly the right thing to do, under the = circumstances=E2=80=A6 but you should be very careful to = compartmentalize that, and its finances and risks, into a separate = entity than the fiber, or the =E2=80=9Cexchange=E2=80=9D or whatever = else you=E2=80=99re doing. Otherwise people will worry that you=E2=80=99r= e going to use fees from one thing to subsidize another, which will = compete with their interests. That=E2=80=99s not hypothetical, that=E2=80= =99s 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=E2=80=99m in = Paris, so happy to chat with you on the phone, if your spoken English is = better than my spoken French. -Bill