NTAC Peering Working Group

[David Pokorney <>]

On Nov 5, 2013, at 2:37 PM, David Farmer 
<>
 wrote:

> On 11/5/13 12:49 , Michael H Lambert wrote:
>> On 18 Sep 2013, at 12:42, Linda Roos 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear NTAC Routing and Peering Committee,
>>> Attached, please find, a document on NET+ traffic on R&E routes.  This 
>>> document has been reviewed by the Network Architecture, Operations and 
>>> Policy Program Advisory Group (NAOPpag).  Should you have any questions 
>>> or comments on the document, please let me know.  Thanks.
>> 
>> It's been a while and I've seen no comments, so I will do so now.  I have 
>> a couple of problems with this sentence:
>> 
>> "While these service providers may transport some “non-research” traffic 
>> to members over the network, reaching the providers over commodity paths 
>> or TR-CPS paths which are provisioned like commodity paths will not 
>> achieve what the community wants with NET+."
> 
> I would revise that to ..."not achieve what *some of* the community wants 
> with *for some* NET+ *providers*."
> 
>> 1) Where are the data that support this claim about community expectations 
>> for network performance for Net+?
> 
> I will give you an anecdote, or an existence proof;  We (NLG) want NET+ 
> available through R&E, we don't provide TR-CPS to all our participants and 
> think it is important to provide access to NET+ through R&E.
> 
> But, I respect your right to think differently and not do so, as long as 
> you respect our right to do so, hence my revisions above.
> 
>> 2) I view TR-CPS as being closer in performance to the R&E network than to 
>> the commodity Internet.  If there is a prevailing view that TR-CPS has 
>> become too "commodity-like", then perhaps what is needed is a strategic 
>> review of the peer selection process, followed by a review of individual 
>> peers in that context.
> 
> As I said, we don't even provide TR-CPS to all of our participants, but 
> even if we did, I don't agree.  We are limited in the amount of TR-CPS 
> traffic we can pull across our links from I2, this may or may not be an 
> issue for everyone, but it is a difference.

I respect that there are limits.  If it make sense for to prefer (some) Net+ 
services (for some connectors) via TR/CPS over R&E then we should make that 
known to Internet2.  Perhaps we can get a report from the TR/CPS study group 
at 4PM today?

-dave

> 
> Also, I disagree that we should ever limit who we peer with for TR-CPS, it 
> serves a completely different purpose than R&E or even NET+.  Besides 
> getting us good access to content we need for our network users, it serves 
> the outreach mission of our institutions, ensuring the best experience for 
> our content to the broadest possible set of users.
> 
> Limiting who we peer would result in curtailing the usefulness of one of 
> these two important uses of TR-CPS.
> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> -----
>> Michael H Lambert, GigaPoP Coordinator         Phone: +1 412 268-4960
>> Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center/3ROX          FAX:   +1 412 268-5832
>> 300 S Craig St, Pittsburgh, PA  15213 USA      
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: 
> 
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================