October 1996 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: "Basic BGP configuration problem"
by William Allen Simpson 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

> From: "Bradley Dunn" <bradley(a)dunn.org> > Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 23:34:48 -0400 > > For a good laugh, call: > 800-669-8303 > and select option 2. > I did! Note that it was recorded at 7 pm, saying it would take 2 hours. Here it is at midnight.... You know how it is, those small, naive ISPs are having trouble with a correct BGP configuration, ruining everyone's peering! ;-) Anyway, I'm actually thankful they _have_ such a status message! This is a real improvement over recent times past, as folks can figure out what is wrong, and know what trouble ticket has been registered. I thank Sprint for improving that part of their service.... WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Re: Peering versus Transit
by Sanjay Dani 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

> From avg(a)quake.net Mon Sep 30 19:05 PDT 1996 > >I didn't know access service providers are not paid by their > >web browsing clients. > > The cost of transaction is split between content providers and > clients. Is this that hard to understand? I guess you missed the sarcasm. Try applying your statement to your own argument and see who is trying to fleece whom? This is homework. No need to fill up my mailbox anymore. > Heh. That's an example of how stupid technology is being > preserved by stupid legistlation. The laws regarding POTS are > generally legal fixes for techincal problems (like inability > to block annoying calls). Forgotten the syn flood attack so quickly? Heard of IP spoofing? > FYI -- i had a more than an engineering role in service providers > covering together all time zones on this planet. One of them > was the first ISP in 16-odd countries. Another was the first > commercial DS-3 backbone in the world. That does not make your one sided arguments stand any more than they did. Goes to prove experience does not necessarily equate insight into all aspects of the business. You have a stake in perpetuating the status quo. Me in changing it because it doesn't make sense. > So why you just don't learn why the present system is here, > and why it delivers while others only promise. No, it is beginning to suck. Have you checked reliability of the backbones lately? Sigh.. old hats like you have a hard time realizing that old models have to, and will, change. Sanjay. PS. This is my last email on this topic.

2 1

Re: Peering versus Transit
by Eric Sobocinski 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 at 18:44 PDT, Vadim Antonov <avg(a)quake.net> wrote: > > Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> wrote: > > >What if you are FlyBite Couriers Inc. and you have a parcel for Bigco > >Inc's art department. The sign on the door at BigCo says "No deliveries, > >go to the back door, this means you!". But you are to lazy so you walk in, > >argue with the receptionist for a minute and dump your package on the > >floor. She has to call in one of the mailroom people from the far end of > >the building complex to deliver the package. > > Er. That situation may actually end up in court. Legally, the parcel > is still in posession of FBC Inc. -- nobody signed the receipt and > nobody left drop-shipment authorization. So sender of the packet > has all reasons to sue FBC Inc. > > So, thank you for playing, but the analogy is somehow wrong. > > > It is not a "theft", it is more like trespassing. It is illegal and > > covered by codes related to unauthorized use of equipment. > > FlyBite Couriers has caused Bigco to spend their own resources in order to > deliver the package to teh art department. Is FlyBite Couriers guilty of > theft? No. Are they guilty of trespass? I don't think so. Actually, they *are* guilty of trespass! The owner has the right to restrict some or all uses of a piece of property. BigCo clearly posted that a particular use (delivery of packages) was banned on their property. Legally, this would be no different than if they had posted "no hunting" and would be enforced the same way. The fact that the owner encourages the same activity on an adjacent property (at the back of the building) is irrelevant. Equally irrelevant is suitability: It doesn't matter that delivery in the lobby might seem preferable. The analogy holds well enough that you could apply the same legal remedies to unwanted delivery of network packets as you would for physical trespass. Upon discovery, the "trespassed" party somehow warns the offending party of their transgression in some sort of well-documented way (grievance, cease-and-desist order, injunction). Should the offending party repeat the action, you have evidence of at least negligence and should have no problem pressing a suit in an appropriate court. All of this is void, of course, if there's some law or superceding agreement that allows such deliveries, regardless of what is "posted". I admit that I don't know what the NSF and various NAP hosts require as far as peering at NAPs, but everything I've heard so far implies that they don't require peering except in very specific circumstances. > Analogy was wrong. They're guilty of fraud if you want legal definition. > They promised sender to deliver parcel, took money and didn't. I find the analogy was right, but they may also be guilty of fraud depending upon the local legal definition of delivery. If so, it could probably be prosecuted with or without an accompanying trespass charge. And, of course, your mileage may vary in an international or non-USA situation. > >This makes good sense too. However, there are always two sides to every > >traffic engineeriung question... > > Exactly. That's why traffic engineering at IXPs is always is a matter > of mutual agreement. Dumping packets at somebody is doing something > without an agreement, ok? Agreed. > --vadim --eric Disclaimer: Of course I'm not an attorney, else the above advice would have cost you plenty. :-) Eric P. Sobocinski | Internet: sobo(a)merit.net | 1075 Beal #2220 Merit Computer Network | or sobo(a)merit.edu | Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2112 Hardware Engineering | | 1.313.763.4895 (USA)

1 0

Re: Peering versus Transit
by Vadim Antonov 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

Bill Woodcock <woody(a)zocalo.net> wrote: > That's a repetition of the same position that's been stated over and > over, without justification. If A sends to B directly in the absence > of an advertised route, A is "stealing" resources from B. If B sends > to A indirectly through A's transit provider, then B is "stealing" > resources from A. What makes the former case worse in your mind than > the latter, when it results in higher reliability, lower cost, and a > sounder architecture? I'm sorry if you are unable to comprehend the difference between going to somebody's place when you were given a key and going to the same place without consent of its owner. And it doesn't matter at all if you want to throw out their old TV and replace it with one offering higher reliability, lower cost and a sounder architecture. --vadim

1 0

Re: Peering versus Transit
by Vadim Antonov 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

Sanjay Dani(maillists) <indus(a)professionals.com> wrote: > > The Web page owners pay for that, ok? If they do not want other people > accessing their data they wouldn't put it there for open and pay for it, too. >I didn't know access service providers are not paid by their >web browsing clients. The cost of transaction is split between content providers and clients. Is this that hard to understand? Everybody placing information on Web _pays_, like those people who place ads in magazines or newspapers. That does not mean magazines must be free. People actually pay more for ads in popular places, ok? >I've a public telephone number, that doesn't mean you can keep >calling the number as often you want. Heh. That's an example of how stupid technology is being preserved by stupid legistlation. The laws regarding POTS are generally legal fixes for techincal problems (like inability to block annoying calls). >You have conveniently ignored to address the main issue of how >bandwidth and traffic usage should be charged as the nature >of network usage changes. The issue of per-connection charges on Internet is dead. It is not technically feasible due to fundamental scaling problems. The volume of connections on Internet surpassed what multimillion telco boxes can handle years ago. >We are not arguing technical issues here. Yawn. Sure. Let's argue the benefits of perpetuum mobile. "Technical issues" are the hard boundaries between possible and just blabbering. >I do not like the model where established players will >contiue to pay only for telco costs, but not IP traffic >costs to anyone else whatsoever even though their clients' >usage is affecting someone else's network and their customers >pay them for the ability to browse contents elsewhere, and >therefore are effectively subsidized to some extent by what >a relatively small ISP content provider pays for IP traffic. Cool. Why won't you write a business plan and go ahead with your new pricing model. You should be able to convince more than few VCs, it's a hot stuff nowadays. FYI -- i had a more than an engineering role in service providers covering together all time zones on this planet. One of them was the first ISP in 16-odd countries. Another was the first commercial DS-3 backbone in the world. >There might very well be a caller-pays-for-the-session model >or settlement charges based on who initiates how much traffic. >I don't know. So why you just don't learn why the present system is here, and why it delivers while others only promise. >I look forward to competitive offerings from >big providers of the kind Sean Doran envisioned in his >essay. They are already here. Just ask somebody more clueful than a regular salesdroid who doesn't know Internet from Istanbul. >Sure, start labeling when you run out of arguments. A certain >losing politician could use your help. It is not labeling. It is diagnosis. --vadim

1 0

Re: Peering versus Transit
by Vadim Antonov 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> wrote: >What if you are FlyBite Couriers Inc. and you have a parcel for Bigco >Inc's art department. The sign on the door at BigCo says "No deliveries, >go to the back door, this means you!". But you are to lazy so you walk in, >argue with the receptionist for a minute and dump your package on the >floor. She has to call in one of the mailroom people from the far end of >the building complex to deliver the package. Er. That situation may actually end up in court. Legally, the parcel is still in posession of FBC Inc. -- nobody signed the receipt and nobody left drop-shipment authorization. So sender of the packet has all reasons to sue FBC Inc. So, thank you for playing, but the analogy is somehow wrong. > It is not a "theft", it is more like trespassing. It is illegal and > covered by codes related to unauthorized use of equipment. FlyBite Couriers has caused Bigco to spend their own resources in order to deliver the package to teh art department. Is FlyBite Couriers guilty of theft? No. Are they guilty of trespass? I don't think so. Analogy was wrong. They're guilty of fraud if you want legal definition. They promised sender to deliver parcel, took money and didn't. >This makes good sense too. However, there are always two sides to every >traffic engineeriung question... Exactly. That's why traffic engineering at IXPs is always is a matter of mutual agreement. Dumping packets at somebody is doing something without an agreement, ok? --vadim

1 0

Re: Peering versus Transit
by Sanjay Dani 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

>From avg(a)quake.net Mon Sep 30 16:14 PDT 1996 > > >Why is it any different than the big ISP's customers dumping > >packets on small ISP's web server? > > The Web page owners pay for that, ok? If they do not want other people > accessing their data they wouldn't put it there for open and pay for it, too. I didn't know access service providers are not paid by their web browsing clients. I've a public telephone number, that doesn't mean you can keep calling the number as often you want. You have conveniently ignored to address the main issue of how bandwidth and traffic usage should be charged as the nature of network usage changes. The new evolving usage patterns may not be convenient to you because they are different from what you've been used to or prove that you made a bad infrastructure investments or maybe you are not used to looking beyond the nuts and bolts, the DS3's, backbones and BGP sessions. We are not arguing technical issues here. I do not like the model where established players will contiue to pay only for telco costs, but not IP traffic costs to anyone else whatsoever even though their clients' usage is affecting someone else's network and their customers pay them for the ability to browse contents elsewhere, and therefore are effectively subsidized to some extent by what a relatively small ISP content provider pays for IP traffic. There might very well be a caller-pays-for-the-session model or settlement charges based on who initiates how much traffic. I don't know. I look forward to competitive offerings from big providers of the kind Sean Doran envisioned in his essay. >I'm sick of net.socialists who think that universal connectivity is an Sure, start labeling when you run out of arguments. A certain losing politician could use your help. Sanjay.

1 0

Best way to deal with bad advertisements?
by Matthew Petach 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

Hi! I'm going to ask the rest of the NANOG community for their thoughts/opinions on a problem that's been plaguing us periodically that we haven't been able to find a satisfactory solution for yet. There's an ISP back on the East Coast that has been periodically advertising more specific routes for /24's out of our CIDR blocks and black-holing the traffic within their network. We've called all the listed numbers for their technical, admin, billing, and any other contacts we can find, and haven't been able to reach a human; we've left messages of various levels of nastyness, from very sugary on up to vaguely threatening. In every case, including the current one, it's been more than 24 hours, and they still haven't made any response to the problem; in fact, I just got paged by our NOC early this morning informing me they've stolen another one of our /24's. As you can well imagine, all the customers on those blocks are _very_ unhappy. Each time this happens, we end up with dissatisfied customers, many of whom leave, deciding that we're too unstable, and can't provide quality network connectivity, even though to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing we can do to prevent these people from stealing our blocks. My question to the NANOG community is twofold and simple: Am I overlooking some solution that would allow us to 'negate' their advertisement of our blocks (205.159.193.0/24 and 207.88.102.0/24 in this case) and secondly, is there a formal process within the community to seek recompense, or formal action against a clueless and net-unfriendly ISP, perhaps one as simple as the net equivalent of Mennonite 'shunning'? Or are we simply out of luck, and have to simply tell our customers "Sorry, everyone is at the mercy of the morons who can steal IP blocks simply by advertising more specific routes with higher weights?" It's getting really tempting to advertise the networks they have their nameservers on from *our* network with a weight of 65535, just to get them to call us back. :-( :-( Anyhow, enough frustrated venting, I *am* very interested in what the community feels is the best policy to follow in situations like this. Thanks again! Matt Petach Network Engineer (writing from home)

7 17

Re: Peering versus Transit
by Vadim Antonov 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

Bill Woodcock <woody(a)zocalo.net> wrote: > WRT the former, I simply cannot fathom, and no one other than Sean has > yet presented an argument explaining why it's malicious to deliver a > packet to its addressee's ISP. You should always add "without consent of the said ISP". It is no different from dumping a pile of bricks at somebody's property. Are bricks useful? You bet. Will it get you dragged in court on charges trespassing and defacing the property? Sure as hell. It is not a "theft", it is more like trespassing. It is illegal and covered by codes related to unauthorized use of equipment. > Why should I, as an ISP, not prefer > that all other ISPs deliver packets to my customers as quickly, > efficiently, directly, and inexpensively as possible? Efficiently, directly and inexpesively from whose point of view? Refer to the example of ISP in Mukhosransk. > Why should I > prefer a more expensive or less reliable route, or expect any other > ISP to do so? There is a million reasons to do that -- economical, legal, technical. One technical reason is pretty obvious -- it is called "traffic engineering". Large ISPs often use nudged routing advertisements as means to balance load between peering points. That assumes that nobody is sending unsolicited traffic. --vadim

2 1