- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Operational impact of depeering
by Hannigan, Martin 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

-- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan(a)verisign.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Tom Vest > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:46 AM > To: Nanog Mailing list > Cc: Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com > Subject: Re: Operational impact of depeering > > > > > On Oct 10, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: > > >> It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the > >> operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or > >> contractual ramifications. > > > > > >> Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review > >> this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month? > > > > Aside from anything else, there is this interesting topic > > on the agenda: > > Abstract: NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering > > Networks > > Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick, > > Sonic.net > > > > Seems to me that a discussion of traffic analysis could > > handle a slide or two on actual impacts of this depeering. > > > > --Michael Dillon > > Here's one way of looking at it: > (copied below b/c the list is not publicly archived) > > TV > > > From: Tom Vest <tvest(a)pch.net> > > Date: October 8, 2005 6:00:32 PM EDT > > To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM- > > L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> > > Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] [ misc fyi ] internet "peering" breaking > > down (fwd) > > > > Okay now that the flap is over and I have a few minutes to spare, > > I'll bite. > > > > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Peter R. wrote: > > > >> Your passionate response deserves a response: > >> > >> It's not very small indeed. > > > > Compared to what? > > > > On 10/1/05, Cogent's network (AS174 -- a very old network) > > originated the equivalent of 1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the > > "ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call > > the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated > > the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05% > > at that point in time. > > > > Note: numbers are derived from the Route Views archive: > > http://archive.routeviews.org/oix-route-views/2005.10/oix-full- > > snapshot-2005-10-01-0000.dat.bz2. > > > > In an RFC 1930/2270 compliant world, 99% of networks downstream of > > either disputant have other, unaffected upstreams, so presumably > > they don't lose reachability to anyone. > > > > Maybe there are 1b Internet users worldwide, and maybe they are > > distributed roughly in proportion to the distribution of Internet > > production. So maybe 5% of the world population as > affected by the > > dispute -- roughly 5m users. > > Anti-Level(3)? The only fact in this was the route view count, and even that could be wrong. Not a very fair comparison, especially to make to regulatory people who may not know better. AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition. You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for them being old school. Cogent is not old school. -M<

3 2

RE: Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent
by James Ashton 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

Would love to see this report. This was a pretty wide reaching event and it would be nice to know the more detailed extent of the full event. James -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Malayter Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:21 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent Good Morning, I would suggest to the PC for the LA NANOG that they invite Todd from Renesys to do a report on the affects of the Level3 depeering of Cogent. I think this would be very informative. Thanks, -Chris

1 0

Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent
by Chris Malayter 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

Good Morning, I would suggest to the PC for the LA NANOG that they invite Todd from Renesys to do a report on the affects of the Level3 depeering of Cogent. I think this would be very informative. Thanks, -Chris

2 1

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record
by Joe Blanchard 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

Hmm, B has the same one, and C has all the other Roots listed as A records. Would/could this really cause any sort of an issue though? Regards, -Joe Blanchard On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: > > See with your own eyes: > > ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @a.public-root.net > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18588 > ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 15, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;. IN ANY > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > . 172800 IN SOA a.public-root.net. hostmaster.public-root.net.\ > 2005101006 43200 3600 1209600 14400 > . 172800 IN A 57.67.193.188 > . 172800 IN NS k.public-root.net. > . ... > . 172800 IN NS j.public-root.net. > > ;; Query time: 81 msec > ;; SERVER: 205.189.71.2#53(a.public-root.net) > ;; WHEN: Mon Oct 10 16:01:11 2005 > >

3 2

I have an A record.
by J.D. Falk 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

There are many like it, but this one is mine. This is kind of a sideways remark about how silly the DNS discussions on NANOG are. Nobody's expressed a new opinion or even made up a worthwhile new analogy on the topic since 1998! Only the names have changed. Furrfu. -- J.D. Falk a decade of cybernothing.org <jdfalk(a)cybernothing.org> registered 24 June 1995

1 0

Operational impact of depeering
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

> It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the > operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or > contractual ramifications. > Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review > this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month? Aside from anything else, there is this interesting topic on the agenda: Abstract: NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering Networks Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick, Sonic.net Seems to me that a discussion of traffic analysis could handle a slide or two on actual impacts of this depeering. --Michael Dillon

3 2

Too much on Cogent and Level 3
by Steven M. Bellovin 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

Will the list moderators please declare this topic closed? Two days ago, someone asked me "is this NANOG or Slashdot?" -- and it hasn't gotten any better. I don't think anyone is learning anything new at this point. If the moderators don't say something, could everyone else please refrain from posting? --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

3 2

RE: GigE Peering Router
by James Ashton 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

Hey there, I would run from the 7206+NPE-G1 in this capacity. We have not had luck actually getting a gig worth of traffic flowing through them. Great small site router, but not much on the throughput side at all. James ________________________________ From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Network Lists Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:40 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: GigE Peering Router Hello, I was looking for some opinions on Cisco vs. Foundry (specifically Cisco's NPE-G1 vs a NetIron 4802). The application is mainly content delivery - outbound heavy traffic with an emphasis on quality of delivery. Basically I'm looking at the 4802 because we're able to provision GigE for all the providers, so we don't really need an architecture that can support OC-type interfaces. The size is also attractive for some of our smaller PoPs. I'm also intereted in failover/hot-standby capabilities on the Foundry as we have had much experience with them. Best, Lance

2 1

Re: Who is a Tier 1?
by J. Oquendo 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: > A few years ago you could probably bamboozle them about your > secret sauce containing "transit free", "peering", "x exchange points" > and so on. Today I suspect they are less susceptible to that > kind of story and more likely to rely on the experience of > existing customers. And if the existing customers of L3 and > Cogent are experiencing agony, what kind of marketing story > does that tell? Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced rulesets they'd have to follow. The irony of this is that it sounds both like a nightmare and a dream. USTIER [peer] EUTIER [peer] ASIATIER | | | \ \ \ \ \ \ $STATE_TIER $COUNTRY_TIER $COUNTRY_TIER Where in the US there would be a main focal tier funded by this consortium. This might minimize the roles of greedy corporate execs breaking routes. It would be (again) funded by the gov, taxes, and monies can be generated by peering with this network. The monies charged would be sufficient to keep it running. In this plan, there could be less mechanisms of Adelphia/Worldcom fuzzy math of selling a billion years worth of bandwidth for write offs as well. /* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning */ =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x97B43D89 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey

18 31

Cogent/Level 3 depeering
by Richard A Steenbergen 09 Oct '05

09 Oct '05

A couple weeks later than expected, but as of Oct 5 02:51AM EDT it looks like 3356 and 174 are no longer reachable. lg.level3.net: Show Level 3 (Washington, DC) BGP routes for 38.9.51.20 No matching routes found for 38.9.51.20. www.cogentco.com looking glass: Tracing the route to www.Level3.com (209.245.19.42) 1 f29.ba01.b005944-0.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.56.189) 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 2 * * * 3 * * * I guess the earlier reports of (3)'s lack of testicular fortitude may have been exagerated after all. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

64 164