March 2005 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Topicality Question: VoIP
by J.D. Falk 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

Are the hundreds upon hundreds of recent threads about VoIP /really/ on-topic for the NANOG list? -- J.D. Falk uncertainty is only a virtue <jdfalk(a)cybernothing.org> when you don't know the answer yet

3 2

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]
by John Dupuy 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

My apologies to UUNet/MCI, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you are useful to the discussion. But by the technical description of a "transit free zone", then 701 is not tier one, since I have encountered scenarios where many AS are transversed between 701 and other networks, not just a peer of a peer. Unless, by "transit free zone" you mean "transit trading" where large providers permit each other to transit for free. (Which gets back to my 'who hurts more' discussion.) I'm willing to be wrong. If any of the large providers on the list will say that their network does not transit beyond the customer of a peer; and they still maintain full connectivity, I will gladly be corrected. John At 07:23 PM 3/28/2005, you wrote: >On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, John Dupuy wrote: > > > I'll be brief, but I do want to perhaps word Alex's definition in a > different way > > that might be more useful. > > > > Even "tier 1" providers regularly trade transit. They must since no single > > network is connected to all the other ones. Not even close. Even UUNet (ASN > > 701), arguably the most-connected network on the planet, only connects to a > > fraction of the possible peerings. > >701 is not the most connected, it has only customers and a restrictive set of >peers? > >you dont need to peer with all networks tho, if all networks are buying >from 701 >or one of its peers then it will get those routes via peering not transit or >transit trades... you seem to be forgetting what peering is. > >and if you peer with all networks in the 'transit free zone' then you too >become >transit free also. > > > The true definition is more vague: if a peering or transit circuit > between A or B > > is taken down, who will be hurt the most: A or B? If it predominantly > B, and much > > less A, then A is "more Tier 1" and B is of a "lesser Tier". If they > are equally > > hurt, they the are of equal status. Essentially, "Tier 1" is whatever > the other > > "Tier 1" providers believe at the moment is "Tier 1". It is > self-referential and > > not distinct at all. > >i believe the distinction exists as shown above ie transit free.. as to >why this >might be considered a goal i'm not sure, its not obvious that transit free is >cheaper than buying transit! > >this thing about 'who hurts most' is an entirely different topic and has >nothing >to do with who is in the transit free zone. altho destructive depeering does >seem to be common practice within that zone :) > > > This is, frustratingly, a very non-technical definition. But it seems > to map > > with what I've actually seen the industry do. > >thats because non-technical definitions mean anyone can call themselves >anything >they like.. wiltel recently spammed me to buy their 'tier1 transit'.. >presumably >they are tier1 within their own definition of tier1. > >if you want to be technical tho, and aiui we are a technical forum, then >tier1 >means transit free. > >i reaffirm my earlier point - but why care, isnt it about cost and >reliability, >and as peering and transit are about the same cost who cares who you dont >peer >with > >Steve > > > > > John > > > > At 09:17 AM 3/28/2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > > > Firstly, peering isn't binary. Is peering vs transit a > distinction > > based on > > > > routes taken / accepted & readvertised, or on cost? Does > "paid for > > peering" > > > > count as peering or transit? If you pay by volume? If you pay for > > "more than > > > > your fair share" of the interconnect pipes? (if the latter, I am > > guessing > > > > there are actually no Tier 1s as everyone reckons they pay > for more > > than > > > > their fair share...). > > > > > > pay? did i say pay? i discussed announcement and receipt of > > prefixes. this > > > was not an accident. it is measurable. > > > > i also avoided money.. i dont think its that relevant, everyone is > > paying for > > peering or transit in one form or another, i dont think any > peering is > > free > > (free != settlement free) > > > > > > Secondly, it doesn't cover scenarios that have have happened > in the > > past. > > > > For instance, the route swap. EG Imagine networks X1, X2, X3, X4 > > are "Tier > > > > 1" as Randy describes them. Network Y peers with all the above > > except X1. > > > > Network Z peers with all the above except X2. Y & Z peer. To > avoid > > Y or Z > > > > needing to take transit, Y sends Z X2's routes (and sends Z's > > routes to X2 > > > > routes marked "no export" to X2's peers), and Z sends Y X1's > routes > > (and > > > > sends Y's routes to X1 marked "no export" to X1's peers). Perhaps > > they do > > > > this for free. Perhaps they charge eachother for it and settle up > > at the end > > > > of each month. Perhaps it's one company that's just bought > another. > > > > "transit (n). The act of passing over, across, or through; passage." > > > > whether it is a settlement arrangement or a mutual swap, they do NOT > > have > > peering, they ARE transitting and by our definition are not > > transit-free (and > > hence not tier1) > > > > however alex, you do highlight an excellent point - things are not as > > simple as > > 'tier1, tier2', there are complicated routing and financial > > arrangements in > > operation, which brings me back to my earlier point: does it matter > > what a > > network is paying for some connectivity providing they deliver to you > > the > > connectivity you need at the quality you desire? > > > > Steve > > > > > >

10 10

Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

The Register article: "The report that this week decided the ownership of the second most important directory on the Internet has been called into question with the claim that a fundamental element of it is factually incorrect." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/31/net_report_denic/ DENIC statement: http://www.denic.de/en/denic/presse/press_70.html - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

9 11

Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
by David Barak 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

--- Paul Vixie <vixie(a)vix.com> wrote: > > thegameiam(a)yahoo.com (David Barak) writes: > > > anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and > my wife complained to > > me yesterday that she has a very hard time > understanding their phone > > conversations anymore. She correctly identified > the change in quality as > > originating from the VoPI. > > as long as she's getting what she's paying for, or > getting the cost savings > that go along with the drop in quality, and is happy > with the savings, then > this isn't a bug. Well, here's the catch - it wasn't the VoIP subscriber who was complaining, it was the PSTN subscriber. The experience left her with the opinion that VoIP = bad quality voice. I suspect you'll see a lot of this... > > unfortunately a lot of companies who use voip or > other forms of "statistical > overcommit" want to pocket the savings and don't > want to disclose the service > limitations. that gives the whole field an > undeserved bad smell. agreed. > > > Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your > implication seems to be "damn > > the 911, full steam ahead." That's great for > optional voice (calls to > > Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to > the fire dept). > > i'm not especially tolerant of governments telling > me how safe i have to be. > if i want a 911-free phone in my house then the most > the gov't should be > allowed to require is that i put a warning label on > my front door and on > anthing inside my house that looks like a phone. occam's razor? We have government regulations regarding things which look like (and function similarly to) light switches, no? We have government regulations regarding the nature of water and sewer pipes, why not regulations regarding the nature of data pipes? > most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. > you have to dial 9-911. We work on different PBXes. The ones on which I work are specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 to avoid a problem. Would YOU want to have been the person who didn't enable one of those options, and thus delayed response time? < snip regarding corporate bad behavior in configuring PBXes> > geez, where's the FCC when you need 'em, huh? actually, yes - I see this as a public safety issue, not a freedom issue. It is in the public's interest for 911 to work the way we expect it to, everywhere. > i think the selective enforcement here is sickening, > and that if old money > telcos can't compete without asset protection, they > should file for chapter > 11 rather than muscling newcomer costs up by calling > these things "phone" and > then circling their wagons around the NANP. But VoIP companies calling their product a "communications service" and saying that they're exempt from 911 regulation, and at the same time beating up the ISPs for deprioritizing their traffic based on the same 911 access is completely fine, huh? Voice is an application, but a gov't regulated one. In this regard it is fundamentally different from email or ftp. > but > that's not going to happen, > so i predict that the internet will do what it > always does-- work around the > problem. so, domain names and personal computers > rather than "phone numbers" > and things-that-look-like-phones. <snip> > and when 20% or 50% of the homes in a region lack > this service because the > people who live in those homes don't want to pay a > POTS tithe, we'll see > some interesting legislation come down, and you can > quote me on that. Yes, I'm certain we will. The legislation will likely be due to a particularly bad fire during a power outage or some other event which makes national news. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com

5 5

seeking a contact for Cox Enterprises (AS 13433)
by Benjamin Cline 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

I am looking to get in touch someone from Cox Enterprises (AS 13433) who can assist with what appears to be a routing problem on their network. Attempts to resolve the issue through the usual/obvious channels have so far failed. benji

1 0

Re: Topicality Question: VoIP
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Personally, I believe that they are spot-on topic for the list, but I'm certain there's a possibility that I'm in the minority. - ferg -- "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk(a)cybernothing.org> wrote: Are the hundreds upon hundreds of recent threads about VoIP /really/ on-topic for the NANOG list? -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Intersting article on ISP issues regarding competitive VoIP services: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=71020 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

13 24

Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Greg Boehnlein 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Brad Knowles wrote: [Deleted] > What I really think we need here are some "truth-in-advertising" > laws which are applied to oversubscription rates. That'd solve the > problem really quick. How about we regulat the Internet like the Electric Utility and charge per byte transferred? :) That would shut down Peer To Peer traffic rather quickly, and it would ensure that everyone pays a fair amount for what they use. I'm only half serious here.. However, I do agree that truth in advertising is a good thing. On a different tact, where I -THINK- the market will eventually end up is w/ different classes of BroadBand service, whereby QOS and priority will be given to those that wish to pay for it. The $14.95 services will be a best-effort, and the $59.95 services will have priority. -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST

9 8

MD5 for TCP/BGP Sessions
by Doug Legge 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

NANOG, I'm currently writing a paper for submission, as part of a MSc in Data Communications, and would appreciate if anyone could update me as to the implementation of MD5 for TCP authentication in BGP. Following the alerts last year: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20040616-bgp.shtml http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA04-111A.html http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a00803be7 d9.shtml http://www.foundrynet.com/solutions/security/TCP_Vulnerability_v1_3.pdf http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/415294 http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2004-04-20 What has been the general effect in the ISP/Enterprise community following the warnings? - Have people applied MD5? - If not what other technologies were implemented (IPSec AH transport mode for BGP sessions/ACL/rate limiting etc)? - Has there been any performance impacts seen since implementation? - Has the support of the BGP environment been increased because of this implementation (What policies regards changing the MD5 keys were implemented)? - Was this seen as a valid fix or a knee-jerk reaction (Having re-read the exchanges on NANOG regards the actual mathematical probability of generating this attack, what did the ISP community actually do (compared to what the academic/vendor community were suggesting)? Whilst I've had some response from bgp-info and bgp-security, it's not really been sufficient to draw any real conclusions. From your knowledge and experience are you aware, either internally or with customers the take up of MD5 implementations and had anyone actually suffered an attack prior to implementation -------------------------------- Please do not supply confidential information or anything that would be commercially sensitive, if you want to contact me off-line or from a private account please do Yours Doug Legge MDC Student Kingston University London /UK

7 11

Yahoo Network Contact
by John Bittenbender 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Would someone from Yahoo please contact me that can assist in a reachability issue to several yahoo subdomains?. JB

1 0