Re: Definition of ISP vs Transit provider

[Miles Fidelman]

Well yes, but functionally, how is IP transport sufficiently different 
to make it an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications 
service?"  At least that's the argument I'd make against reclassifying 
access services.


Miles


On 11/22/17 9:24 PM, Luke Guillory wrote:


Those normally come with ASRs and a tariff from the regulated side of 
things. At least from my experience anyway.


Sent from my iPad

On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Miles Fidelman 
> wrote:



On 11/22/17 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:


On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca > wrote:
The FCC is about to reclassify "Broadband Internet Access Service" 
as an

information service instead of Telecommunications Service. This
prombpted the following question which isn't about the FCC action 
per say.


This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ?
For that matter, how does one distinguish between someone delivering 
IP packets, vs. someone offering frame relay, or ATM - which are 
clearly telecom services?


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra



Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation


Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com
Web:www.rtconline.com


Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084


*Disclaimer:*
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only 
for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain 
confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, 
distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guilloryimmediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this 
e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to 
be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, 
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain 
viruses. Luke Guillorytherefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a 
result of e-mail transmission.




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Definition of ISP vs Transit provider

[Luke Guillory]

Those normally come with ASRs and a tariff from the regulated side of things. 
At least from my experience anyway.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Miles Fidelman 
> wrote:

On 11/22/17 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
The FCC is about to reclassify "Broadband Internet Access Service" as an
information service instead of Telecommunications Service. This
prombpted the following question which isn't about the FCC action per say.

This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ?
For that matter, how does one distinguish between someone delivering IP 
packets, vs. someone offering frame relay, or ATM - which are clearly telecom 
services?

Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra





Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation


[cid:imagea31855.JPG@9f5ca8aa.498ff694] 

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com
Web:www.rtconline.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084





Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission.

Re: Definition of ISP vs Transit provider

[Miles Fidelman]

On 11/22/17 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:


On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

The FCC is about to reclassify "Broadband Internet Access Service" as an
information service instead of Telecommunications Service. This
prombpted the following question which isn't about the FCC action per say.

This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ?
For that matter, how does one distinguish between someone delivering IP 
packets, vs. someone offering frame relay, or ATM - which are clearly 
telecom services?


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Definition of ISP vs Transit provider

[Thomas Edwards]

Regarding transit and traffic exchange, in today’s FCC Declaratory Ruling: 

166. Deregulating Internet Traffic Exchange. Today, we return to the pre-Title 
II Order status quo by classifying broadband Internet access service as an 
information service, and in doing so, reverse the extension of Title II 
authority to Internet traffic exchange arrangements.603 There is no dispute 
that ISPs, backbone transit providers, and large edge providers are 
sophisticated, well-capitalized businesses.604 Indeed, the Title II Order 
acknowledged as much,605 and refused to impose “prescriptive rules” or even 
“draw policy conclusions concerning new paid Internet traffic arrangements.”606 
Notwithstanding, the Title II Order cast a shadow on new arrangements in this 
sector by applying a range of common carrier requirements to Internet traffic 
exchange.

167. We believe that applying Title II to Internet traffic exchange 
arrangements was unnecessary and is likely to inhibit competition and 
innovation. We find that freeing Internet traffic exchange arrangements from 
burdensome government regulation, and allowing market forces to discipline this 
emerging market is the better course.607 Indeed, the cost of Internet transit 
fell over 99 percent on a cost-per-megabit basis from 2005 to 2015.608

168. We welcome the growth of alternative Internet traffic exchange 
arrangements, including direct interconnection, CDNs, and other innovative 
efforts. All parties appear to agree that direct interconnection has benefited 
consumers by reducing congestion, increasing speeds, and housing content closer 
to consumers, and allowed ISPs to better manage their networks.609 CDNs play a 
similar role.610 We believe that market dynamics, not Title II regulation, 
allowed these diverse arrangements to thrive.611 Our decision to reclassify 
broadband Internet access service as an information service, and to remove 
Title II utility-style regulation from Internet traffic exchange, will spur 
further innovation in this market.612 Returning to the pre-Title II Order 
light-touch framework will also eliminate the asymmetrical regulatory treatment 
of parties to Internet traffic exchange arrangements.613 As NTCA explains, the 
Title II Order imposed a one-sided interconnection duty upon last-mile 
ISPs—even though, especially in rural
areas, “many ISPs are a tiny fraction of the size of upstream middle mile and 
transit networks or content and edge providers.”614 The record reflects that 
the asymmetric regulation reduced incentives to share costs, and we anticipate 
that eliminating one-sided regulation of Internet traffic exchange and 
restoring regulatory parity among sophisticated commercial entities will allow 
the parties to more efficiently allocate the costs arising from increased 
demands on the network.615

-Thomas

-- 
Thomas Edwards
FOX Networks Engineering & Operations
VP Engineering & Development
thomas.edwa...@fox.com
10201 W Pico Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90035


On 11/22/17, 12:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Jean-Francois Mezei" 
 wrote:

The FCC is about to reclassify "Broadband Internet Access Service" as an
information service instead of Telecommunications Service. This
prombpted the following question which isn't about the FCC action per say.

This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ?

Cogent for instance acts as a transit provider to other networks but
also sells connectivity to companies.

Peer1 in Canada used to sell "transit" to a then small emerging ISP, but
as its sole transit provider, provided the BGP management as well as
peering at Torix.  Is the service to the ISP still called "transit" ?

Or would ISP be defined as the organsation which assigns IPs to end
users via PPPoE of DHCP ?

One could argue that a network which assigns 4 or less IPs per customer
would be an ISP. But what about IPv6 where the ISP could give each end
user a /64 ?

Just curious to see if there are agreed upon definitions from the
network operators's point of view.

I note that large companies tend to do everything from transit, to
residential ISP, business ISP, libraries, airports etc. For Bell Canada,
it is almost all under AS577. So separating what is telecom and what is
information becomes more "interesting".









As a point of reference this is what I *think* the FCC defines as an ISP:

##
23. Broadband Internet access service also does not include virtual
private network (VPN) services, content delivery networks (CDNs),
hosting or data storage services, or Internet backbone services (if
those services are separate from broadband Internet access service),
consistent with past Commission precedent.69 The Commission has
historically distinguished these services from “mass market” 

Re: Definition of ISP vs Transit provider

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> The FCC is about to reclassify "Broadband Internet Access Service" as an
> information service instead of Telecommunications Service. This
> prombpted the following question which isn't about the FCC action per say.
>
> This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ?

Corn on the cob vs. corn in a can.


> Just curious to see if there are agreed upon definitions from the
> network operators's point of view.

No.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Definition of ISP vs Transit provider

[Scott Weeks]

--- jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
From: Jean-Francois Mezei 

This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ?

Just curious to see if there are agreed upon definitions 
from the network operators's point of view.
--



Different parts of the same company? ;-)  Maybe transit is
transit *only* and no individual end users.  Their end users
are networks with business networks attached only.   But, 
then individual end users have business networks in their 
home, too.  So, blurry at best.

scott

Re: Definition of ISP vs Transit provider

[Javier J]

I can't seem to find the answer for this. But I'm curious as to what
exactly is proposed.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The FCC is about to reclassify "Broadband Internet Access Service" as an
> information service instead of Telecommunications Service. This
> prombpted the following question which isn't about the FCC action per say.
>
> This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ?
>
> Cogent for instance acts as a transit provider to other networks but
> also sells connectivity to companies.
>
> Peer1 in Canada used to sell "transit" to a then small emerging ISP, but
> as its sole transit provider, provided the BGP management as well as
> peering at Torix.  Is the service to the ISP still called "transit" ?
>
> Or would ISP be defined as the organsation which assigns IPs to end
> users via PPPoE of DHCP ?
>
> One could argue that a network which assigns 4 or less IPs per customer
> would be an ISP. But what about IPv6 where the ISP could give each end
> user a /64 ?
>
> Just curious to see if there are agreed upon definitions from the
> network operators's point of view.
>
> I note that large companies tend to do everything from transit, to
> residential ISP, business ISP, libraries, airports etc. For Bell Canada,
> it is almost all under AS577. So separating what is telecom and what is
> information becomes more "interesting".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As a point of reference this is what I *think* the FCC defines as an ISP:
>
> ##
> 23. Broadband Internet access service also does not include virtual
> private network (VPN) services, content delivery networks (CDNs),
> hosting or data storage services, or Internet backbone services (if
> those services are separate from broadband Internet access service),
> consistent with past Commission precedent.69 The Commission has
> historically distinguished these services from “mass market” services,
> as they do not provide the capability to transmit data to and receive
> data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints.70 We do not
> disturb that finding here.
>
> 24. Finally, we observe that to the extent that coffee shops,
> bookstores, airlines, private end- user networks such as libraries and
> universities, and other businesses acquire broadband Internet access
> service from a broadband provider to enable patrons to access the
> Internet from their respective establishments, provision of such service
> by the premise operator would not itself be considered a broadband
> Internet access service unless it was offered to patrons as a retail
> mass market service, as we define it here.71 Likewise, when a user
> employs, for example, a wireless router or a Wi-Fi hotspot to create a
> personal Wi-Fi network that is not intentionally offered for the benefit
> of others, he or she is not offering a broadband Internet access
> service, under our definition, because the user is not marketing and
> selling such service to residential customers, small business, and other
> end-user customers such as schools and libraries.
> ##
>
> The full 210 proposed FCC decision is at:
> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf
>
>

Definition of ISP vs Transit provider

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

The FCC is about to reclassify "Broadband Internet Access Service" as an
information service instead of Telecommunications Service. This
prombpted the following question which isn't about the FCC action per say.

This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ?

Cogent for instance acts as a transit provider to other networks but
also sells connectivity to companies.

Peer1 in Canada used to sell "transit" to a then small emerging ISP, but
as its sole transit provider, provided the BGP management as well as
peering at Torix.  Is the service to the ISP still called "transit" ?

Or would ISP be defined as the organsation which assigns IPs to end
users via PPPoE of DHCP ?

One could argue that a network which assigns 4 or less IPs per customer
would be an ISP. But what about IPv6 where the ISP could give each end
user a /64 ?

Just curious to see if there are agreed upon definitions from the
network operators's point of view.

I note that large companies tend to do everything from transit, to
residential ISP, business ISP, libraries, airports etc. For Bell Canada,
it is almost all under AS577. So separating what is telecom and what is
information becomes more "interesting".









As a point of reference this is what I *think* the FCC defines as an ISP:

##
23. Broadband Internet access service also does not include virtual
private network (VPN) services, content delivery networks (CDNs),
hosting or data storage services, or Internet backbone services (if
those services are separate from broadband Internet access service),
consistent with past Commission precedent.69 The Commission has
historically distinguished these services from “mass market” services,
as they do not provide the capability to transmit data to and receive
data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints.70 We do not
disturb that finding here.

24. Finally, we observe that to the extent that coffee shops,
bookstores, airlines, private end- user networks such as libraries and
universities, and other businesses acquire broadband Internet access
service from a broadband provider to enable patrons to access the
Internet from their respective establishments, provision of such service
by the premise operator would not itself be considered a broadband
Internet access service unless it was offered to patrons as a retail
mass market service, as we define it here.71 Likewise, when a user
employs, for example, a wireless router or a Wi-Fi hotspot to create a
personal Wi-Fi network that is not intentionally offered for the benefit
of others, he or she is not offering a broadband Internet access
service, under our definition, because the user is not marketing and
selling such service to residential customers, small business, and other
end-user customers such as schools and libraries.
##

The full 210 proposed FCC decision is at:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

Broadcast television in an IP world

[Thomas Edwards]

Of potential interest to NANOG members, a key element of the new digital TV OTA 
standard, ATSC 3.0 (besides improved efficiency/flexibility of modulation, 4K, 
HEVC video coding, AC-4 immersive audio, high dynamic range/wide color gamut), 
is the expectation that it will be typically be viewed on an Internet connected 
TV, thus allowing for a composition of OTA content with interactive & 
personalized Internet-delivered services.

This hybrid OTA/OTT concept has already been trialed in parts of Europe using 
the “HbbTV” (hybrid broadband-broadcast TV) standard.  This URL describes some 
of the potential capabilities of ATSC 3.0 in this area:

https://nabpilot.org/next-generation-tv-home-gateway/

ATSC 3.0 will be deployed early next year in Phoenix, AZ as a test market, with 
10 stations participating, including affiliates of the four largest TV networks.

At the same time, many live local television station broadcasts are already 
available via OTT.  This can be done either directly by a network & affiliates, 
such as CBS All Access, or through a distributor (which we call a Digital MVPD 
or “DMVPD”) which now include Sling TV, Playstation Vue, DirecTV Now, YouTube 
TV, Hulu with Live TV, and Fubo TV.

To aid in achieving the scale required for mass OTT, I’d like to point out two 
efforts by the Streaming Video Alliance.  The first is the Open Caching 
initiative.  As you may know, some large OTT content distributors have offered 
to deploy content caches in end-user ISPs (such as Google Global Cache or 
Netflix Open Connect), but to date they have been proprietary to that 
distributor.  Open Caching from the SVA establishes the basic architectural 
guidelines for implementation of a non-proprietary, open caching system:

https://www.streamingvideoalliance.org/technical-work/working-groups/open-caching/

Another effort is Multicast ABR. This is generally imagined as the use of 
multicast within an end-user ISP.  There was recently a PoC to demonstrate live 
4K streaming using the CableLabs Multicast ABR architecture based on RFC 5740 
NORM (NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast).  This utilizes the home gateway to 
receive the live multicast stream, and “convert” the stream to unicast HTTP for 
last-foot delivery.

https://www.streamingvideoalliance.org/2017/07/31/multicast-abr-poc/
https://apps.cablelabs.com/specification/ip-multicast-adaptive-bit-rate-architecture-technical-report

-Thomas

--
Thomas Edwards
FOX Networks Engineering & Operations
VP Engineering & Development
thomas.edwa...@fox.com
10201 W Pico Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90035

RE: Amazon Streaming Department

[Adam Montgomery]

Jason, we had a similar issue as well. I was able to get in contact with
some helpful people at Amazon who got it fixed for us. I passed your info
along to them. If anyone else is having the same issue, shoot me a message
and I'll pass your info along as well.

Adam

-
Hello all,

A while back I wrote in regarding an update on Netflix services / our IP
addresses being blocked.  I had helpful feedback in getting this
resolved.  Does anyone have a contact at Amazon for resolving IP
blacklist issues on their Amazon Prime / streaming services?  I have
contacted their Customer Service, but they aren't very easy to work with.

Thank you!

Best Regards,

Jason Canady
Unlimited Net, LLC

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

[K. Scott Helms]

Mike,

While that's true today it's changing rapidly.  Linear viewership is,
depending on your take on things, either in the beginning or the middle of
it's long tail phase.  You're right in that we'll have people using linear
viewing habits for a long time, but that model only looks sustainable over
the long term for either very large MSOs, the digital satellite operators,
and OTT offerings that offer a similar experience.  There's very little
investing in efficiencies for linear content as this point, other than how
it gets replaced.  Part of the change is technical, part generational
changes, and part overreach on the part of some of the content owners.

Scott Helms

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I'm not doubting OTT is popular. There's just an awful lot of people that
> have zero interest (or ability) to use OTT. They will continue to consume
> entertainment linearly, regardless of the mechanism used to deliver it.
>
>
> People in NANOG often forget that most people aren't like us. Heck, most
> people in NANOG forget that not every network is like their network.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Baldur Norddahl" 
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:46:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
>
> I am not going to guess on a timeframe. I would like to point out that
> the youth ignore TV. They no longer have TVs on their rooms. It is all
> on smartphones or tablets these days. Even with the family in a living
> room, everyone might be sitting with their own device doing their own
> thing.
>
> We have a significant share of the customers that have no other TV than
> OTT streaming. Myself included. Here (Denmark) almost all TV channels
> are available as OTT streaming. The free national broadcast TV is also
> available for streaming (for free).
>
> With an Apple TV you can do all the same things that you can do with
> OTA, cable or satellite. Cheaper (*) and more convenient too. Far from
> everyone has discovered this yet, but since we cater to people that are
> cable cutters, a larger than usual share of our customers is doing
> exactly this.
>
> (*) I believe the OTT solutions are cheaper as long you do not want a
> lot of sport programming. If you do want sport I believe it is more
> expensive but you also have more options and content available.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
> Den 21/11/2017 kl. 17.58 skrev Mike Hammett:
> > of the TV they use... through you. That doesn't count OTA, cable,
> satellite, etc.
> >
> > It won't change significantly any time soon. I know things are changing,
> but it'll still take five or ten years for those changes to significantly
> change traffic patterns.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > From: "Baldur Norddahl" 
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
> >
> > Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" :
> >
> > Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use
> > significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop.
> > Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree as of this moment however that will change. Also note that our
> > customers do 100% of their TV as unicast OTT because that is the only
> thing
> > we offer. This does not cause nearly as much problems as you would
> expect.
> >
>
>
>

Re: ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

[Jay Hennigan]

On 11/22/17 9:51 AM, Aaron Gould wrote:

This is a *single area* ospf environment, that has been stable for years..
But now suddenly is having issues with new ospf neightbor adjacencies ,
which are riding a 3rd party transport network

Anyone ever experienced anything strange with underlying transport network
mtu possibly causing ospf neighbor adjacency to be broken ? > I'm asking if
the underlying 3rd party transport layer 2 network has a smaller mtu than
the endpoint ospf ip interface have, could this cause those ospf neighbors
to not fully establish ? 


Yes. Easy to check with a ping sweeping a range of sizes and DF set.


and I'm also asking this if the single ospf area
has grown large enough to cause some sort of initial database packet to be
larger than that underlying 3rd party mtu is providing


Not likely. How many routers and are things relatively stable in terms 
of routes changing?


--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

[Aaron Gould]

This is a *single area* ospf environment, that has been stable for years..
But now suddenly is having issues with new ospf neightbor adjacencies ,
which are riding a 3rd party transport network 

 

Anyone ever experienced anything strange with underlying transport network
mtu possibly causing ospf neighbor adjacency to be broken ?  I'm asking if
the underlying 3rd party transport layer 2 network has a smaller mtu than
the endpoint ospf ip interface have, could this cause those ospf neighbors
to not fully establish ? .and I'm also asking this if the single ospf area
has grown large enough to cause some sort of initial database packet to be
larger than that underlying 3rd party mtu is providing

 

-Aaron