message from TransACT about peer-peer

[Robert Edwards]

I sent a message to a key player at TransACT about our recent discussions
on peer-peer and I gave him the URL for the online mail archive. I received 
this reply from him earlier and got permission to forward it to this list 
(return e-mail addresses deleted for the obvious reasons). Please don't try
and contact him directly!

Cheers,

Bob Edwards.

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: FW: Hi and a heads up on an online discussion
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:12:24 +1000
From: "Robin Eckermann"
To: "Robert Edwards"

Hi Bob!

I copied your message to one of our key guys - I thought you would be
interested in the response (below). In summary, we are planning to
establish a virtual router (=VPN) that any broadband user will be able
to log onto and have peering connection to any other user also logged
into the same VPN via a PPPoE session. Any communication between such
users happens right in the nerve centre of our network ... sessions
don't go out to ISPs and as such, there's no per-Mbyte charges. This is
targeted to be in place in a little over a month. The main work to be
done relates to putting in place the business processes for establishing
and managing user accounts ... the technology is already in place.

The step beyond that will be to make a growing array of broadband
content sources also available through the same VPN. This is important
to avoiding unrealistic charges on content that is all local to Canberra
anyway and will add to the value users get from a TransACT broadband
connection.

Of course, we are also keen to encourage peering arrangements between
ISPs on our network, but its a business decision for them as to whether
they want to collaborate with their competitors and, if so, underwhat
terms.

Matthew touches on a suggestion that was raised in one of the messages
on the bulletin board - that is, setting up an independent peering
facility. As indicated above, its really not necessary for anyone to
invest in additional equipment since the most logical mechanism is to
create a virtual router within the fabric of our existing
switching/routing platform. We could of course support establishment of
a third-party peering VPN, but there would be some charges associated
with this to cover the cost of technological and administrative
resources tied up. I doubt that anyone will want to pursue this if we're
planning to do it anyway.

Hope this helps!

Regards ... Robin Eckermann



-----Original Message-----
From: <blanked out>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 2:39 PM
To: Robin Eckermann
Subject: RE: Hi and a heads up on an online discussion

TransACT already has a peer-peer network setup (referred to as the
intranet).  When a set top box is installed the installers log onto the
intranet to test the connection.  What we are working on now is the
processes that we need to put in place to give people access to the
network.  These processes include associating username(s) with an
account id, allocating an IP address and hostname, and recording the IP
address and host name in a DNS.

The forecast date for completion is the end of November.

Once this milestone is achieved we will start work on the next phase
which will allow access to both the intranet and the Internet (via an
ISP) at the same time.  This second phase will require work with the
ISPs.

Brett Worth referred to issues with 10.x.x.x on both his corporate
network and the TransACT intranet.  It is correct that the TransACT
intranet will used the 10.x.x.x private address range, but if you logon
using your ISPs account rather than the intranet account you will be
given a real world IP address.  There will only be issues when you have
a private 10.x.x.x network and want to connect to the Internet through
the intranet (stage two) or want to connect to a computer on the
intranet.  Yes, there are potential issues in this situation.  Where
possible we recommend using a 192.168.x.x or 172.16-31.x.x address.  If
this is not possible then David Gibson's suggestion of a series of NATs
would allow access to specified machines.

Marek Samoc made reference to a Canberra Linux Users Group peer-peer
setup that we may do as they are not for profit.  Unfortunately this is
not an option as the majority of home users are not for profit and we
could not justify setting up (for free) individual peer-peer networks
for every second person.  We will offer a general network for everyone
to use, but if anyone wants security they will have to implement similar
measures to what would be required if the computer was on the Internet
eg firewall.

Martijn van Oosterhout asked about the cost of setting up their own
virtual router (sorry, peer-peer network).  Yes there is a cost, but you
will have to answer this one Robin.

-------------------------------------------------------