Subject: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:38:09 -0400

Patrick,

Let us take these one at a time.  Inline. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Melampy [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:34 PM
> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer); 'Stastny Richard'; 'Reinaldo 
> Penno'; 'Otmar Lendl'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> 
> I'd like to comment as follows:
> 
> You said:
> >  I believe the reality will be that there will ultimately 
> be two options:
> >   - from one SP (carrier/enterprise) to another there is 
> direct peering,
> >   - from one SP to another there is no direct peering and a 
> "Tier 1" 
> > SP  will be used for transit.
> 
> Unless somebody representing a carrier makes this statement, 
> it's safe to say we are just guessing. I find this statement 
> your making to lack any backing. How many Autonomous Systems 
> do your communications go through today? When you're at work? 
> When you're at home? I'm guessing you have no idea. Why 
> should this group ever designate a role for a Tier 1 SP as a 
> required internetworking element? If you worked at a 
> competitive Tier 2 you might take exception to your statement.

The basis for this statement is an assumption that for security and
economic reasons, you must have rules of engagement in order to connect
to a peer.  If there is a business arrangement, you can directly
connect, if not then an intermediary is used.  This is rather simple and
straight forward.  This does not preclude you creating a
wide-open-to-the-Internet federation through which anyone can connect to
you.

I am simply stating there are two options:  direct and indirect.  Is
there a third possibility?

> > My thinking, if it is not obvious is that the optimal 
> number of SPs is 
> > 2 (direct peering).
> 
> Optimal in whose frame of reference? The internet's? The 
> caller? The callee?
> The carrier(s)? My guess is your thinking of the internet. 

The most optimal is directly from client to client, ie. true P2P.  But,
I am relaxing that here to the assumption that an end device may
"outsource" some degree of features and functionality to a SP, be that
enterprise PBX or carrier system.

It is optimal because we are talking about two parties, the caller and
called parties.  For that you could have an origination system and a
termination system.  Anything beyond that is extraneous middlemen that
add cost into the picture, but not much in the way of added value, and a
lot of possibility for unintended consequences to screw up the signaling
or media.

Case in point:  Every additional signaling point on the path will
exacerbate call setup delay and increase the complexity of the
interactions amongst all these components.

Case in point:  Every additional media anchor will add delay to the RTP
stream, thus negatively affecting QoS.

So, from the perspective of the caller and callee, the service
experience will be better if SPs can minimize the number of extra moving
parts in the system.

And, from the perspective of the SP, the fewer middlemen in the picture,
the fewer the profits to share amongst those middlemen.

I am just applying Occam's Razor to get the minimalist set.

> > Second best is 3 (one transit).  
> Why is one transit carrier better than 2 or 3? Is it cost? 
> Quality? Where did this conclusion come from? Are there any 
> IP based models where a single backbone carrier is considered 
> optimal? Doesn't this limit competition and choice? Wouldn't 
> it be anti-competitive, and thus not be net-neutral?

I am suggesting that if both caller and callee have the good fortune to
prefer the same transit carrier, then the savings from avoiding a second
SP can be shared.  This is what is experienced when a call stays within
a single enterprise.  This is what happens when you have a "friends and
family" scenario.

It is both a business advantage and a technical advantage to have only
one SP's policies to care about.  No interworking!

> >Maximum number is 4 (one originating and one terminating transit).
> 
> Why is this the maxium? 

What would a third tranist carrier provide that could not be better
provided if transit carrier 1 and 2 had a direct signaling agreement
between them?  How is sharing revenues amongst 3 carriers better than
shared betweeen 2?

> I hate to argue with your statements, but they should be 
> better defended.

Hopefully, I have done so. :)

> There are a lot of managed networks that are both legislated 
> and or pre-existing. 

I don't want our creativity to be limited by arbitrary government fiat,
nor by lack of imagination constrained to repeat simply what already
exists.

> The owners of long haul fiber networks 
> want to use them for signaled media. 

Nothing precludes this.  This is a layer 3 issue.  I am not saying that
to connect one signaling point to another that there can not be a VPN
over a third IP carrier.  Don't confuse Layer 5 with Layer 3 issues.

> My guess is we will not 
> only have One Tier 1 to choose from, but the following:
> 
> 1.) Each Enterprise will desire at least 2 interconnect 
> carriers to ensure they have the lowest cost and best level 
> of service with redundancy.

My statements don't preclude this.

> 2.) Each Tier 1 Carrier will want to purchase termination 
> services for its customers and have multiple paths to each 
> major desination domain

Not precluded.

> 3.) Many Tier 2 and Tier 3 carriers will exist by selecting 
> specific target markets and verticals.

Define Tier 2 and 3.  I think you have descended into Layer 3 here.

> 4.) Governments will continue to try to enforce regulations 
> guaranteeing a competitive landscape for communication 
> interconnects (requiring access for 2nd and 3rd carrier options.

See previous.

> I could go on and on. I would suggest that we embrace the 
> realities of our world as requirements for this standards group.

Belive me, I am being very realistic.  Allow room for arbitrage and it
will occur.  Economics will drive out an inefficiency in routing, so
long as a better path exists.

If you do go on and on, would you please also indicate what added value
any such intermediaries provide?  So far, you have only indicated that
they have existed in the past.  While their value may have been grounded
in the regulatory and business climate of the past, past history that
does not take into account new technical realities amounts to just
rebuilding the PSTN because that's the way we did it with TDM.  I don't
find such arguments persuasive.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:09:05 +0200

[inline]

> there a third possibility?

Well, call it a variant of "direct": The business arrangement may
be via an intermediate, but the connection may be direct.
(e.g. when a some sort of certification authority qualifies peers
on behalf of some constituency.)

[...]

> lot of possibility for unintended consequences to screw up the signaling

[...]

> long as a better path exists.

Agreed. How fast and widestread this happens depends a lot on the
cost structure of layer 5 transits. If it is pure SIP signalling
(e.g. in order to provide trust) without media, then this can
be done with very little additional cost per call (and none per minute).

Whether some local SP from Hawaii will bother to establish peerings
with one from Finland will depend on calling patterns and the
administrative overhead of establishing the peering.

We just don't know yet what the cost factors will be in this business
in a few years. I just doubt that we can accurately predict what
business models will emerge and how many SIP proxies the average
call will traverse.

All we can do right now is to write standards which are not dependent
on a specific assumption regarding the interconnection structure. 
Our RFCs need to cope with both a quite flat hierarchy (large number
of peers per service provider) as well as 4-level one.

/ol
-- 
< Otmar Lendl ([email-masked]) | nic.at Systems Engineer >

---

From: "Uzelac, Adam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:48:51 -0400

Piping in here to make a point or two - Two realistic requirements that
oftentimes are overlooked in global peering bar-napkin discussions, and
possibly assumed in the PSTN world, are trust and scale.  I argue that
the P2P world of direct interconnection/peering, though preferred for
obvious technical reasons, can't be realized practically due to scale
limitations and an inherent lack of trust. Therefore these 2 items
should be kept in mind when scheming up a solution for global peering
dominance. (/me puts pinky finger to mouth and mutters, "1 million
dollars"!  muhahaha)  ;)  

A service provide would be best served to provide its subscribers a way
to contact anyone else.  The burden to facilitate that session is on the
SP.  Will a SP in Topeka trust a SP in Oslo enough to establish a direct
peering arrangement?  Without that direct peer, how will the subscribers
of the Topeka SP access the folks in Oslo?  An intermediary most likely
will be involved with the value being reachability and trust that should
a call be sent to the transit provider, it will be completed as intended
by the calling party. At the end of the day, it will be the one that
will complete the call that gets the buck.  Unfortunately it's the PSTN
that facilitates that Topeka to Oslo call today more often than not.

-Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hammer (mhammer) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Patrick Melampy; Stastny Richard; Reinaldo Penno; Otmar Lendl
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture

Patrick,

> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer); 'Stastny Richard'; 'Reinaldo Penno'; 
> 'Otmar Lendl'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Unless somebody representing a carrier makes this statement, it's safe

> to say we are just guessing. I find this statement your making to lack

> any backing. How many Autonomous Systems do your communications go 
> through today? When you're at work?
> When you're at home? I'm guessing you have no idea. Why should this 
> group ever designate a role for a Tier 1 SP as a required 
> internetworking element? If you worked at a competitive Tier 2 you 
> might take exception to your statement.

> Optimal in whose frame of reference? The internet's? The caller? The 
> callee?

> Quality? Where did this conclusion come from? Are there any IP based 
> models where a single backbone carrier is considered optimal? Doesn't 
> this limit competition and choice? Wouldn't it be anti-competitive, 
> and thus not be net-neutral?

> I hate to argue with your statements, but they should be better 
> defended.

> There are a lot of managed networks that are both legislated and or 
> pre-existing.

> The owners of long haul fiber networks want to use them for signaled 
> media.

> 1.) Each Enterprise will desire at least 2 interconnect carriers to 
> ensure they have the lowest cost and best level of service with 
> redundancy.

> 2.) Each Tier 1 Carrier will want to purchase termination services for

> its customers and have multiple paths to each major desination domain

Not precluded.

> 3.) Many Tier 2 and Tier 3 carriers will exist by selecting specific 
> target markets and verticals.

> guaranteeing a competitive landscape for communication interconnects 
> (requiring access for 2nd and 3rd carrier options.

See previous.

> I could go on and on. I would suggest that we embrace the realities of

> our world as requirements for this standards group.

Mike

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:56:13 -0400

I couldn't agree more.  Comments inline:

On Jun 13, 2006, at 9:48 PM, Uzelac, Adam wrote:

> of the Topeka SP access the folks in Oslo?

One model that has been discussed on this list is the email model,  
which is that ITSPs just run open networks.  Given that I receive on  
the order of 900 spam emails a day, I do not think ITSPs will be  
opening up to this arrangement any time soon.

>   An intermediary most likely
> by the calling party.

There are entities that do this today, except they don't do transit  
(usually).  They are known as VoIP peering exchanges.

> At the end of the day, it will be the one that
> will complete the call that gets the buck.

And most don't have call termination charges.

-andy