Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
On Wed, 01 Apr 2020 20:58:17 -0700, Matt Corallo said: > If your goal is to force companies the world over to host domestically, where > they follow local licensing regimes (yes, including censorship, as well as > data > access), itâs highly effective. You missed the point. There's a distinction between "setting up conducive conditions" and "doing". Both may be morally problematic, but they're different things. Consider the US example of certain US companies who got caught giving the NSA a fiber connection at certain "interesting" points in the network - the legal exposure for the companies and for the intelligence agency were totally different. It's why our legal system recognizes the difference between committing a felony and being an accessory to the crime. We have *enough* trouble with people yelling "Censorship!" when Facebook or Quora or other social media sites owned by private actors enforce AUPs. Let's not let the word get further muddied into uselessness like "terrorism" has been over the last 2 decades. pgpynlcaNt4UE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
If your goal is to force companies the world over to host domestically, where they follow local licensing regimes (yes, including censorship, as well as data access), it’s highly effective. Even better, it makes users fail to identify the difference between “google is down because it is blocked” and “google is slow, because western websites are always slow and too annoying to bother loading”. You also missed my other note that slower links means you don’t have to spend as much on GF appliances, cause there’s less traffic to filter! > On Apr 1, 2020, at 20:46, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:47:22 -0700, Matt Corallo said: > >> No one suggested it isn’t censorship, you’re bating here. Not deploying >> enough international capacity is absolutely a form or censorship deployed to >> great avail - if international sites load too slow, you can skimp on GF >> appliances! > > So.. who was being "censored" when a recent game release caused capacity > problems and slow throughput for others? > > Censorship, *by definition*, is content-dependent. Capacity issues are either > byte-count or packet-count dependent, and don't distinguish between pictures > of > huge rubber duckies in Tiananmen square, and pictures of Mount Kilimanjaro. >
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
On Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:47:22 -0700, Matt Corallo said: > No one suggested it isnât censorship, youâre bating here. Not deploying > enough international capacity is absolutely a form or censorship deployed to > great avail - if international sites load too slow, you can skimp on GF > appliances! So.. who was being "censored" when a recent game release caused capacity problems and slow throughput for others? Censorship, *by definition*, is content-dependent. Capacity issues are either byte-count or packet-count dependent, and don't distinguish between pictures of huge rubber duckies in Tiananmen square, and pictures of Mount Kilimanjaro. pgpbQqu0qreQ8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
On 4/1/20 12:47, Matt Corallo wrote: No one suggested it isn’t censorship, you’re bating here. I think you mean baiting, but perhaps not. ;-) -- Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
Thank you for your understanding and your patience and kindness to explain it to us. We really appreciate it. We will keep that in mind and won’t ask this kind of questions again. Thanks again. Pengxiong On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:59 PM Tom Beecher wrote: > I do understand that you mean well, but do realize that interconnection > between the rest of the world and the networks controlled by the Chinese > government is a very, very sensitive and often touchy subject. It's also > generally true that networks aren't going to disclose terms of commercial > relationships on a public mailing list. ( By and large those terms aren't > likely to be disclosed privately either. :) ) > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:28 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's >> slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely influenced by >> commercial decisions instead of censorship. It seems like the three Chinese >> ISPs don't really have enough peering internationally in Asia, and they >> have very strong bargaining power when it comes to peering. >> >> Some suggest the cost of moving data to China is way lower if an ISP >> peers with US/European ISPs than directly with the Chinese ISPs. We assume >> the reason why those US/European ISPs offer cheaper prices is that they >> have settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs. However, the "free-tier" >> capacity is simply not enough to handle the demand -- the US/European ISPs >> now have way more traffic going into China, thus saturating the link and >> causing congestion. >> >> So we are wondering, do the Tier-1 US/European ISPs really have >> settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs? If we want to do paid peering >> directly with the Chinese ISPs or purchase the full/partial transit, what >> is the price range? >> >> From the BGP information, we know some of the peers of AS4134 (the >> biggest one) are: >> - Telia Carrier(AS1299) >> - Cogent Communications(AS174) >> - NTT Communications (America)(AS2914) >> - Level3(AS3356) >> - Tata Communications(America) Inc (AS6453) >> - Verizon Business/UUnet(AS701) >> - Zayo Bandwidth(AS6461) >> - AT Services, Inc.(AS7018) >> - GTT Communications Inc.(AS3257) >> - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC(AS7922) >> >> It would be much appreciated if the operators of any such networks can >> give chime in. Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> Pengxiong Zhu >> Department of Computer Science and Engineering >> University of California, Riverside >> > -- Best, Pengxiong Zhu Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of California, Riverside
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
I do understand that you mean well, but do realize that interconnection between the rest of the world and the networks controlled by the Chinese government is a very, very sensitive and often touchy subject. It's also generally true that networks aren't going to disclose terms of commercial relationships on a public mailing list. ( By and large those terms aren't likely to be disclosed privately either. :) ) On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:28 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote: > Hi folks, > > We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's > slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely influenced by > commercial decisions instead of censorship. It seems like the three Chinese > ISPs don't really have enough peering internationally in Asia, and they > have very strong bargaining power when it comes to peering. > > Some suggest the cost of moving data to China is way lower if an ISP peers > with US/European ISPs than directly with the Chinese ISPs. We assume the > reason why those US/European ISPs offer cheaper prices is that they have > settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs. However, the "free-tier" > capacity is simply not enough to handle the demand -- the US/European ISPs > now have way more traffic going into China, thus saturating the link and > causing congestion. > > So we are wondering, do the Tier-1 US/European ISPs really have > settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs? If we want to do paid peering > directly with the Chinese ISPs or purchase the full/partial transit, what > is the price range? > > From the BGP information, we know some of the peers of AS4134 (the biggest > one) are: > - Telia Carrier(AS1299) > - Cogent Communications(AS174) > - NTT Communications (America)(AS2914) > - Level3(AS3356) > - Tata Communications(America) Inc (AS6453) > - Verizon Business/UUnet(AS701) > - Zayo Bandwidth(AS6461) > - AT Services, Inc.(AS7018) > - GTT Communications Inc.(AS3257) > - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC(AS7922) > > It would be much appreciated if the operators of any such networks can > give chime in. Thanks! > > Regards, > Pengxiong Zhu > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > University of California, Riverside >
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
> > No one suggested it isn’t censorship, > In fact, some replies suggested it’s more commercial actions. We said it's "likely influenced by commercial decisions", we didn't say censorship is out of the question. We still think censorship is the possible cause, but we run out of methods to verify it, that's why we switched to commercial actions to try our luck. If commercial actions don't seem to cause the slowdown, then it would be definitely censorship. Most of the performance hit is because of commercial actions, not > censorship. > When there is a tri-opoly, with no opportunity of competition, its easily > possible to set prices which are very different than market conditions. > This is what is happening here. > Prices are set artificially high, so their interconnection partners wont > purchase enough capacity. additionally, the three don't purchase enough to > cover demand for their own network. Results in congestion. > >-- > comment what also doesn't help is that the Chinese carriers don't want to peer in > Asia, not even with globally transit-free tier-1 networks. Their closest > point of interconnection is typically in Europe or the US, so thousands of > miles away from the end user. >-- > Anonymous comment > you’re bating here. > Once again we are confused by the accusation. We don't want to bait anyone for anything. Not deploying enough international capacity is absolutely a form or > censorship deployed to great avail > Yes we agree it is also a form of censorship. However, it is based on the assumption that China didn't deploy enough international capacity, which we don't have direct proof of it. On the contrary, from the stable performance of the traffic going out of China, it is very likely the assumption is not true. They might have enough physical capacity, but they don't make good use of it.
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:54 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote: > Sorry we didn’t know this is out of scope. What do you mean by baiting > questions? > This is an operator list. Not an opened research discussion. Take it off the list. We are not very familiar with the peer protocol, > Then pay an expert to teach you. so we don’t know what questions can be discussed here or not. We are > researches, we just want to dig more to the cause of the slowdown that we > observed. > You know it is the GFW. Pointing to other places is baiting. If you want to know how China Telecom does business ask them. Not us. If you want to say it is not the GFW, then write a paper about it. Dont send emails here. And we thought those questions are okay to ask here, which are not. But we > don’t want bait anyone. > It is not. Stop. > Sorry about the lack of knowledge of what can be discussed here. > Watch what others are talking about and add to it. Nobody else here is doing conversations like you. > Pengxiong > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:34 PM Ca By wrote: > >> This topic is out of scope for the list. Please stop emailing these >> baiting questions. >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:27 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's >>> slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely influenced by >>> commercial decisions instead of censorship. It seems like the three Chinese >>> ISPs don't really have enough peering internationally in Asia, and they >>> have very strong bargaining power when it comes to peering. >>> >>> Some suggest the cost of moving data to China is way lower if an ISP >>> peers with US/European ISPs than directly with the Chinese ISPs. We assume >>> the reason why those US/European ISPs offer cheaper prices is that they >>> have settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs. However, the "free-tier" >>> capacity is simply not enough to handle the demand -- the US/European ISPs >>> now have way more traffic going into China, thus saturating the link and >>> causing congestion. >>> >>> So we are wondering, do the Tier-1 US/European ISPs really have >>> settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs? If we want to do paid peering >>> directly with the Chinese ISPs or purchase the full/partial transit, what >>> is the price range? >>> >>> From the BGP information, we know some of the peers of AS4134 (the >>> biggest one) are: >>> - Telia Carrier(AS1299) >>> - Cogent Communications(AS174) >>> - NTT Communications (America)(AS2914) >>> - Level3(AS3356) >>> - Tata Communications(America) Inc (AS6453) >>> - Verizon Business/UUnet(AS701) >>> - Zayo Bandwidth(AS6461) >>> - AT Services, Inc.(AS7018) >>> - GTT Communications Inc.(AS3257) >>> - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC(AS7922) >>> >>> It would be much appreciated if the operators of any such networks can >>> give chime in. Thanks! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Pengxiong Zhu >>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering >>> University of California, Riverside >>> >> -- > > Best, > Pengxiong Zhu > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > University of California, Riverside >
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
Sorry we didn’t know this is out of scope. What do you mean by baiting questions? We are not very familiar with the peer protocol, so we don’t know what questions can be discussed here or not. We are researches, we just want to dig more to the cause of the slowdown that we observed. And we thought those questions are okay to ask here, which are not. But we don’t want bait anyone. Sorry about the lack of knowledge of what can be discussed here. Pengxiong On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:34 PM Ca By wrote: > This topic is out of scope for the list. Please stop emailing these > baiting questions. > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:27 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's >> slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely influenced by >> commercial decisions instead of censorship. It seems like the three Chinese >> ISPs don't really have enough peering internationally in Asia, and they >> have very strong bargaining power when it comes to peering. >> >> Some suggest the cost of moving data to China is way lower if an ISP >> peers with US/European ISPs than directly with the Chinese ISPs. We assume >> the reason why those US/European ISPs offer cheaper prices is that they >> have settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs. However, the "free-tier" >> capacity is simply not enough to handle the demand -- the US/European ISPs >> now have way more traffic going into China, thus saturating the link and >> causing congestion. >> >> So we are wondering, do the Tier-1 US/European ISPs really have >> settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs? If we want to do paid peering >> directly with the Chinese ISPs or purchase the full/partial transit, what >> is the price range? >> >> From the BGP information, we know some of the peers of AS4134 (the >> biggest one) are: >> - Telia Carrier(AS1299) >> - Cogent Communications(AS174) >> - NTT Communications (America)(AS2914) >> - Level3(AS3356) >> - Tata Communications(America) Inc (AS6453) >> - Verizon Business/UUnet(AS701) >> - Zayo Bandwidth(AS6461) >> - AT Services, Inc.(AS7018) >> - GTT Communications Inc.(AS3257) >> - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC(AS7922) >> >> It would be much appreciated if the operators of any such networks can >> give chime in. Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> Pengxiong Zhu >> Department of Computer Science and Engineering >> University of California, Riverside >> > -- Best, Pengxiong Zhu Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of California, Riverside
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
No one suggested it isn’t censorship, you’re bating here. Not deploying enough international capacity is absolutely a form or censorship deployed to great avail - if international sites load too slow, you can skimp on GF appliances! Matt > On Apr 1, 2020, at 12:26, Pengxiong Zhu wrote: > Many are suggesting it is likely influenced by commercial decisions instead > of censorship.
Re: The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
This topic is out of scope for the list. Please stop emailing these baiting questions. On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:27 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote: > Hi folks, > > We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's > slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely influenced by > commercial decisions instead of censorship. It seems like the three Chinese > ISPs don't really have enough peering internationally in Asia, and they > have very strong bargaining power when it comes to peering. > > Some suggest the cost of moving data to China is way lower if an ISP peers > with US/European ISPs than directly with the Chinese ISPs. We assume the > reason why those US/European ISPs offer cheaper prices is that they have > settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs. However, the "free-tier" > capacity is simply not enough to handle the demand -- the US/European ISPs > now have way more traffic going into China, thus saturating the link and > causing congestion. > > So we are wondering, do the Tier-1 US/European ISPs really have > settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs? If we want to do paid peering > directly with the Chinese ISPs or purchase the full/partial transit, what > is the price range? > > From the BGP information, we know some of the peers of AS4134 (the biggest > one) are: > - Telia Carrier(AS1299) > - Cogent Communications(AS174) > - NTT Communications (America)(AS2914) > - Level3(AS3356) > - Tata Communications(America) Inc (AS6453) > - Verizon Business/UUnet(AS701) > - Zayo Bandwidth(AS6461) > - AT Services, Inc.(AS7018) > - GTT Communications Inc.(AS3257) > - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC(AS7922) > > It would be much appreciated if the operators of any such networks can > give chime in. Thanks! > > Regards, > Pengxiong Zhu > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > University of California, Riverside >
The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs
Hi folks, We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely influenced by commercial decisions instead of censorship. It seems like the three Chinese ISPs don't really have enough peering internationally in Asia, and they have very strong bargaining power when it comes to peering. Some suggest the cost of moving data to China is way lower if an ISP peers with US/European ISPs than directly with the Chinese ISPs. We assume the reason why those US/European ISPs offer cheaper prices is that they have settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs. However, the "free-tier" capacity is simply not enough to handle the demand -- the US/European ISPs now have way more traffic going into China, thus saturating the link and causing congestion. So we are wondering, do the Tier-1 US/European ISPs really have settlement-free peering with Chinese ISPs? If we want to do paid peering directly with the Chinese ISPs or purchase the full/partial transit, what is the price range? >From the BGP information, we know some of the peers of AS4134 (the biggest one) are: - Telia Carrier(AS1299) - Cogent Communications(AS174) - NTT Communications (America)(AS2914) - Level3(AS3356) - Tata Communications(America) Inc (AS6453) - Verizon Business/UUnet(AS701) - Zayo Bandwidth(AS6461) - AT Services, Inc.(AS7018) - GTT Communications Inc.(AS3257) - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC(AS7922) It would be much appreciated if the operators of any such networks can give chime in. Thanks! Regards, Pengxiong Zhu Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of California, Riverside
