NTAC Peering Working Group

[Ryan Harden <>]

>> Regardless of how Net+ providers are connected, I suggest it’s not 
>> correct, and potentially harmful, to depict TR-CPS as commodity 
>> connectivity, unless that’s really how the service is managed now.


Throwing my +1 in here.

I don't pretend to understand fully what may or may not happen, but I'd hate 
to see a situation where we lose TR-CPS due to the carriers' recent 
sensitivity to an R&E network competing with their business model.

/Ryan

Ryan Harden
Senior Network Engineer
University of Chicago - AS160
P: 773-834-5441




On Nov 6, 2013, at 1:16 PM, David Pokorney 
<>
 wrote:

> I agree Steven, why not make TR/CPS as an equal Net+ “carrier” in addition 
> to the R&E network?  I hope the TR/CPS review team are looking at how we 
> can make all camps happy here.   thanks, -dave
> 
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Steven Wallace 
> <>
>  wrote:
> 
>> From the very beginning of the Commercial Peering Service (now TR-CPS), it 
>> was envisioned as providing better-than-commodty connectivity to 
>> commercial cloud providers. The current TR-CPS service description on the 
>> I2 web site says: “...offers a low cost path with higher performance goals 
>> than commercial alternatives…”. That’s a large part of the initial 
>> motivation for CPS. In the beginning there was no difference in the 
>> underlying infrastructure between R&E and CPS, however that’s changed 
>> substantially over the years.
>> 
>> Regardless of how Net+ providers are connected, I suggest it’s not 
>> correct, and potentially harmful, to depict TR-CPS as commodity 
>> connectivity, unless that’s really how the service is managed now.
>> 
>> ssw
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>> ================================================
>> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail