- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: BGP Filtering
by Ben Butler 21 Jan '08

21 Jan '08

Hi Jason, Fantastic news, it is possible. We are using Cisco - would you be so kind as to give me a clue into which bit of Cisco's website you would like me to read as I have already read the bits I suspected might tell me how to do this but have guessed wrong / the documentation hasn't helped - so a handy pointer would be appreciated. Kind Regards Ben -----Original Message----- From: Jason Dearborn [mailto:jasondearborn@gmail.com] Sent: 15 January 2008 16:35 To: Ben Butler Subject: Re: BGP Filtering That's typically a function of your router software. Juniper, Force10, and Cisco all have support for this. Check your manual. On Jan 15, 2008 8:11 AM, Ben Butler <ben.butler(a)c2internet.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > Considering: > > http://thyme.apnic.net > > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113220 > !!!!! > > /20:17046 /21:16106 /22:20178 /23:21229 /24:126450 > > That is saying to me that a significant number of these smaller > prefixes are due to de-aggregation of PA and not PI announcements. > > My question is - how can I construct a filter / route map that will > filter out any more specific prefixes where a less specific one exists > in the BGP table. > > If my above conclusion is correct a significant portion ~47% of the > number of the prefixes in the table could be argued to be very > unnecessary at one level or another. > > Is such a filter possible easily or would it have to be explicitly > declared, any chance of a process the automatically tracks and > publishes a list of offending specifics similar to Team Cymru's Bogon BGP feed. > > As a transit consumer - why would I want to carry all this cr*p in my > routing table, I would still be getting a BGP route to the larger > prefix anyway - let my transit feeds sort out which route they use & > traffic engineering. > > Thoughts anyone? > > > Kind Regards > > Ben >

46 66

RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

> It's very true that the underlying cost of the technology is > falling. However, the cost of chip development is growing > rapidly as device size falls (tapeout costs are >$1M USD > today) and the market is somewhat limited, so the ability to > amortize your design cost across volume is somewhat limited. > To further limit the market by effectively constraining it to > your own internal consumption is going to further increase > this effect. Normally, when a device designer contracts out manufacturing of their design to the Asian factories, they constrain the factories to only produce devices for the designer themselves. If the designer of such comodity devices were to take an open-source approach, and allow the Asian factories to produce devices for anyone who wants them, then this constraint is removed. Of course, the price lowering still depends on lots of others adopting the same hardware so this only partially solves that problem. --Michael Dillon

1 0

RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
by Rod Beck 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

In the Brave New World, the gap between the average user and the user whose peak demand determines upstream capacity needs, has widened. So the access providers will find that their infrastructure needs upgrading. In particular, the backhaul will need constant upgrading. And of course, more peering. :) More 10 gig waves across the Atlantic! Hahooh! Roderick S. Beck Director of European Sales Hibernia Atlantic 1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com Wireless: 1-212-444-8829. Landline: 33-1-4346-3209. French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97. AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth rod.beck(a)hiberniaatlantic.com rodbeck(a)erols.com ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Alex Rubenstein Sent: Sun 1/20/2008 8:02 PM To: Taran Rampersad; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial > > As long as the companies convince people that the "cap" is large > > enough to be essentially the same as unmetered then most people won't > > care and will take the savings. I don't agree. When we sold boatloads of dialup in the mid to late 90's, people did not like caps, no matter how high they were. We sold a product early on for $20/month which gave you 240 hours/month -- that was an average of 8 hours/day. However, most users never used more than 20 to 30 minutes a day -- but we often got told they were moving to other providers because they were 'unlimited.' So, we adapted. In any event, I've been watching this thread, and I'd have to say that going down the road of metered pricing will only cause other providers not to do this, and then market against TW. In fact, I'd bet on it. Am I the only one here who thinks that the major portion of the cost of having a customer is *not* the bandwidth they use?

1 0

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]
by Neil J. McRae 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

Delivering BGP solutions for end users is starting to get very expensive particularly for those networks with lots of smaller pops, I think some effort to look at how this might be better delivered without access boxes needing to know the entire routing table esp in light of IPV6 Regards, Neil (missed the end of the last email!) -----Original Message----- From: William Herrin <herrin-nanog(a)dirtside.com> Sent: 20 January 2008 17:22 To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> > > wrote: > >> On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >>> There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough > >>> numbers > >>> suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4 prefix in > >>> the DFZ (whether PI, PA or TE) was then in the neighborhood of $8000 > >>> USD per year. > >> > >> I haven't seen that work, but I am guessing this number is an > >> aggregate (i.e. every cost to everyone on the 'Net combined), not > >> per- > >> network? See, I'm just looking at that TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR > >> number and thinking to myself, "um, yeah, right". :) > > > > Patrick, > > > > That was a worldwide total, yes. The cost per prefix per router is > > obviously only measured in cents per year. > > I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per > year No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost analysis is easy to calculate: Entry level DFZ router: $40,000 Stacked 1U layer-3 switches with similar switching capacity and port density: $10,000 Difference between the two: The switch stack can't handle the DFZ prefix count. Cost delta (attributable to the DFZ prefix count): $30,000 Expected lifespan in the DFZ of an entry-level router: 3 years Prefixes in the table: 245,000 Calculation: The LOWER BOUND for the cost per prefix per router can be calculated as: ( [entry level router's cost attributable to prefixes]/[expected lifespan] ) / [DFZ prefix count] ($30,000/3)/245,000 = $0.04 per router per year, i.e. 4 cents. Bear in mind that 4 cents per year is a LOWER BOUND. It costs AT LEAST 4 cents per router per year to carry one prefix in one DFZ router. There are also routers in the DFZ which cost $500,000 where much more than $30,000 is attributable to the prefix count. >. While there are 27K ASes ($0.30/year/AS, remember?), there are > many more routers which carry a full table. Yes, there are many more routers than ASes. In my original analysis on ARIN, I estimated that there were some 200,000 routers carrying a full table in the DFZ. The consensus at the time was that the number was closer to 150,000 than 200,000. 150,000 times 4 cents yields a LOWER BOUND economic impact of $6,000 per prefix per year, $1.5B overall. Again, that's a lower bound on the estimate. The upper bound is perhaps twice that with the highest probability cost around $8,000 per prefix per year. > Comparing cisco & Juniper's annual revenue to the cost of a prefix is > like comparing Ford & GM's revenue to the cost of bulbs in > headlights. Hell, most of cisco's revenue is not even related to > routers doing a full table. Of course not. However, it makes a good sanity check on the cost estimate: If the costs attributable to prefix count sums to more than their revenues then there must be an error in the math. My point was that the $8000/prefix/year estimate passes the sanity check with plenty of room to spare. > > The thread started here: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-September/008927.html > > It was originally an argument of about the cost of doing PI for IPv6, > > which according to Cisco product literature consumes twice the amount > > of space in the FIB as routes for IPv4. > > Anyway, thanks for the link. I must be missing something seriously > important to the calculation. Perhaps it includes things like human > time to upgrade equipment or filters or something? I'll see how the > calculation [The entire original message is not included]

1 0

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]
by Neil J. McRae 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

Bill I think your approach has some merits as a measuring stick but more stufy on this is absolutely needed. Given what I've experienced recently I think the cost per prefix is greatly undervalued. It is actually a capacity/step change model that almost equates to the same model used for core bandwidth upgrades but the core bandwidth upgrades and the cost to refresh those has made the cost per prefix a non issue for the most part. Unfortunately thats changing especially in the access and distribution layers of the network. Where for the most part there are devices that can currently cope with the bandwidth demand but can't cope with the route table size demand. I suspect any AS older than 5 years has a ton of kit that can't take the entire routing table and is causing major headaches and requiring rehoming of BGP4 customers to newer kit for no additional revenues! Delivering BGP solutions for end users is starting to get very expensive particularly for those networks with lots of smaller pops, I think some effort to look at how this might be be Regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: William Herrin <herrin-nanog(a)dirtside.com> Sent: 20 January 2008 17:22 To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> > > wrote: > >> On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >>> There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough > >>> numbers > >>> suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4 prefix in > >>> the DFZ (whether PI, PA or TE) was then in the neighborhood of $8000 > >>> USD per year. > >> > >> I haven't seen that work, but I am guessing this number is an > >> aggregate (i.e. every cost to everyone on the 'Net combined), not > >> per- > >> network? See, I'm just looking at that TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR > >> number and thinking to myself, "um, yeah, right". :) > > > > Patrick, > > > > That was a worldwide total, yes. The cost per prefix per router is > > obviously only measured in cents per year. > > I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per > year No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost analysis is easy to calculate: Entry level DFZ router: $40,000 Stacked 1U layer-3 switches with similar switching capacity and port density: $10,000 Difference between the two: The switch stack can't handle the DFZ prefix count. Cost delta (attributable to the DFZ prefix count): $30,000 Expected lifespan in the DFZ of an entry-level router: 3 years Prefixes in the table: 245,000 Calculation: The LOWER BOUND for the cost per prefix per router can be calculated as: ( [entry level router's cost attributable to prefixes]/[expected lifespan] ) / [DFZ prefix count] ($30,000/3)/245,000 = $0.04 per router per year, i.e. 4 cents. Bear in mind that 4 cents per year is a LOWER BOUND. It costs AT LEAST 4 cents per router per year to carry one prefix in one DFZ router. There are also routers in the DFZ which cost $500,000 where much more than $30,000 is attributable to the prefix count. >. While there are 27K ASes ($0.30/year/AS, remember?), there are > many more routers which carry a full table. Yes, there are many more routers than ASes. In my original analysis on ARIN, I estimated that there were some 200,000 routers carrying a full table in the DFZ. The consensus at the time was that the number was closer to 150,000 than 200,000. 150,000 times 4 cents yields a LOWER BOUND economic impact of $6,000 per prefix per year, $1.5B overall. Again, that's a lower bound on the estimate. The upper bound is perhaps twice that with the highest probability cost around $8,000 per prefix per year. > Comparing cisco & Juniper's annual revenue to the cost of a prefix is > like comparing Ford & GM's revenue to the cost of bulbs in > headlights. Hell, most of cisco's revenue is not even related to > routers doing a full table. Of course not. However, it makes a good sanity check on the cost estimate: If the costs attributable to prefix count sums to more than their revenues then there must be an error in the math. My point was that the $8000/prefix/year estimate passes the sanity check with plenty of room to spare. > > The thread started here: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-September/008927.html > > It was originally an argument of about the cost of doing PI for IPv6, > > which according to Cisco product literature consumes twice the amount > > of space in the FIB as routes for IPv4. > > Anyway, thanks for the link. I must be missing something seriously > important to the calculation. Perhaps it includes things like human > time to upgrade equipment or filters or something? I'll see how the > calculation was put together. Nope, just the numbers you see in the link. I didn't calculate cost increases due to manpower, cost reductions due to equipment reuse after its DFZ lifespan, or other factors for which data is sketchy and the likely impact to the analysis is small. Like I said: read the thread, critique the numbers and then add them up for yourself. A prefix is surprisingly expensive. If it wasn't, folks wouldn't be so concerned about the rising prefix count. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin(a)dirtside.com bill(a)herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

1 0

RE: Massive AT&T outage?
by Paul Ferguson 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The oddball aspect of this for me was that a friend was wondering why he couldn't reach the Pizza Hut online ordering site [quikorder.pizzahut.com] which is directly attached to AT&T: %tracert quikorder.pizzahut.com Tracing route to quikorder.pizzahut.com [129.41.62.29] over a maximum of 30 hops: [snip] 6 65 ms 66 ms 69 ms tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.12.49] 7 61 ms 64 ms 63 ms cr1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.19.1] 8 84 ms 64 ms 62 ms cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.4.122] 9 62 ms 66 ms 62 ms tbr2.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.17.210] 10 62 ms 66 ms 64 ms gar1.chail.ip.att.net [12.123.4.65] 11 72 ms 64 ms 65 ms 12.119.137.58 12 73 ms 63 ms 66 ms 10.22.2.5 13 73 ms 64 ms 63 ms 129.41.62.29 Trace complete. It seems to have crapped out earlier somewhere [various places actually] in the AT&T routing infrastructure. Pizza ordering apparently is now available. ;-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHkv3Kq1pz9mNUZTMRAjZsAJwPafDM2qBv3vbO91MJNkfgfVGPuQCgxAgS bdPsLZFfmDVwiVG28b5OTVE= =G4iq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

Re: Massive AT&T outage?
by Paul Ferguson 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "randal k" <nanog(a)data102.com> wrote: >Anybody have any insight into what's happening to AT&T? Internet Pulse is >showing almost their entire network having massive problems. > No insight, but seeing similar issue in the S.F. Bay Area... - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHkuF7q1pz9mNUZTMRAp6uAKDJbkMtbEO8REaKFw+BCvdOLE8leQCfU07p lZYcUT35Yr0s4mJlIglmDa8= =e1Pt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

3 2

qwest outage?
by Daniel 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

Anyone currently aware of a Qwest outage? My qwest sites are down, even qwest.com daniel

3 4

Massive AT&T outage?
by randal k 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

Anybody have any insight into what's happening to AT&T? Internet Pulse is showing almost their entire network having massive problems. Randalk

3 2

RE: Massive AT&T outage?
by Paul Ferguson 20 Jan '08

20 Jan '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Yamasaki, Charles" <Charles.Yamasaki(a)move.com> wrote: >Neither do I, but experiencing issues from Phoenix. The situation seems to have stabilized here in the Bay Area, not sure about elsewhere. Not an AT&T customers, but most "test" routes across their customer peering here locally seem okay now. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHku8Yq1pz9mNUZTMRAlnOAKCO+NM5G679cBNj8Ye5fCPxUU+suwCgpZ7Y 3CG+uHPealqz0n7S9DUMMkM= =VkFU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0