NTAC Peering Working Group

[Cort Buffington <>]

I”ve largely stayed out of this because we have no I2 NET+ consumption here… 
though we do have our own, we just never called it that before I2 came up 
with the snazzy new name. In our environment, we don’t make any such 
fine-grained distinction as TR-CPS and R&E have become. When TR-CPS was CPS 
and it was starting out, it made sense, but to me NET+ is commodity service 
with the enhancement of a better transport network… which is also how I see 
TR-CPS.

Sheer speculation, but my sense is the access to the much lauded I2 R&E 
network (something we’ve all held over the commercial provider world for a 
long, long time) is probably more important to the NET+ vendor than the NET+ 
recipient… I mean, it’s all I2’s network, and we expect it to be superior, 
regardless of the marketing term. I could see being a NET+ vendor though, and 
wanting that I2 R&E seal of awesome on my service to make me more competitive.

On Nov 19, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Darrell Newcomb 
<>
 wrote:

> On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:49 AM, 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+."
>> 
>> 1) Where are the data that support this claim about community expectations 
>> for network performance for Net+?
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> For point of reference TR-CPS is not very commodity-like other than in how 
> the far-end networks might be described; much more R&E-like than 
> commodity-like in most ways of considering those monikers.  Are there 
> counter-points?  I'm sure there are, but none jump to mind that are 
> inherently attached and would be more 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> 
> Cash investment over many years might have many describe as 
> approaching-zero, but I'll describe as far less than the median amount of a 
> single-connector's single-year payments but over a longer period of time.
> 
> Rather than peer selection there are a number of other factors that pushing 
> toward more "commodity like" aspects/outcomes.  I'll skip trying to give 
> more description around some of those, but can if desired.
> 
> 

--
Cortney T. Buffington
Executive Director
KanREN, Inc.

Office: (785) 856-9800
Mobile: (785) 865-7206