Re: Draft AUP

[Sematimba Noah K <ksemat@wawa.eahd.or.ug>]

Most of this was acquired form the Kenya AUP which is a layer 3 XP. thus
some of the contents do not conform to our needs. Here are revised
sections according to your suggestions. A complete AUP including some of
the contents of the verio XP will be posted for further scrutiny and
comments.

Other members please contibute to this discussion.

There will be a meeting at Grand Imperial Coffee Terrace 3.00 p.m. on
Wednesday 11th July 2001 to
discuss this AUP and other pending issues such as how much rack space each
ISP gets, etc.

Okay here goes:

4. Subscribers will make use of a unique Autonomous System Number assigned
   by a suitable registration authority. As of this writing, the top-level
   registration authorities in the world are APNIC, ARIN and RIPE.

9.  Members must, on all interfaces connected to the UIXP, disable: Proxy
  ARP, ICMP redirects,IRDP, Directed broadcasts, IEEE802 Spanning
  Tree, Interior routing protocol broadcasts, and all other MAC layer
  broadcasts except ARP.
11. This rule actually does not make sense so I propose to scrap it.

15. Members will not install 'sniffers' to monitor traffic passing through
    the UIXP, except through their own ports. The UIXP may monitor any port
    and publish aggregated statistics however all other information will
    be kept confidential, except where required by law or where the UIXP
    has determined a violation of this Memorandum of Understanding.

16. Confidential correspondence may not be posted by anyone to the uixp
      mailing list.
18. This one has been scrapped since it does not apply to our situation.
In our case members will not be charged according to the amount of traffic
but rather flat fees as was agreed in previous meetings.

> > 19. Members may not directly connect customers who are not UIXP Members via
> > circuits to their router housed in any UIXP rack.
>
> i.e. they may not put in private peering inter-member interconnects?  why
> not?

Not that actually. But imagine I am a customer of ISP A and I am probably
nearer to the XP than to ISP A's premises. An ISP may be tempted to
instead connect me to their router at the IXP instead of all the way to
their premises. But otherwise inter-member connects should be okay.
>
> > 20. Members should not routinely use the UIXP for carrying traffic between
> > their own routers.
>
> if i have two routers on the mesh (for redundancy i choose to pay for two),
> then 50% of the traffic from a peer (unless meds are used) will go to the
> 'wrong' router.  so 50% of my inbound traffic will be routinely shifted
> between two of my own routers.
>
That is a valid case. But imagine ISP A has two POPs in X and Y, and it
has a direct link between these two POPs but each of them is also
connected to the IXP. It would not be nice for say when their link between
the POPs dies for the ISP to decide to route their own internal traffic
through the IXP. i.e traffic from X destined for Y

21. Members will be required to install routers that support the full BGP-4
standard. A list of suggested routers will be made available online.

> i suggest you do not want to start down this path.  aside from other things,
This is for those who cannot make up their minds. There are undoubtedly
those who will want to connect but have no idea what router to use. This
list will simply be a suggestion on which routers they can try. Members
will not be restricted to this list at all. All that is required is a BGP
compliant router.

> the goal here is a distributed customer-supplied noc?  seems a good way to
> bootstrap inexpensively.  cool!
exactly! Even with full time support at the IXP some things may slip the
eye of the person who is watching.  Thus this would be nice.

> not sure you want to be this specific, but can't see direct harm.  some nice
> generic statement about standards conformance might be good.
Any suggestions on how to phrase that?

> i am not a big fan of technology by democracy.
True. But it is the only way of ensuring that everyone is happy with
decisions made. We wouldn't like a member to come up and say that the
decision making process is dominated by only a few and that their views
are not heard. Even if you thought that their views are technically
incompetent, for the sake of harmony one may have to compromise.

Noah.



--
This is the techies mailing list. The list archives can be found at http://uixp.co.ug/archives .