- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?)
by Lane Patterson 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

BGP keepalive/hold timers are configurable even down to granularity of link or PVC level keepalives, but for session stability reasons, it appears that most ISPs at GigE exchanges choose not to tweak them down from the defaults. IIRC, Juniper is 30/90 and Cisco is 60/180. My gut feel was that even something like 10/30 would be reasonable, but nobody seems compelled that this is much of an issue. Cheers, -Lane -----Original Message----- From: Petri Helenius [mailto:pete@he.iki.fi] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:07 PM To: Mikael Abrahamsson; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? > What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not? > That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea if the guy on the "other end" died until the BGP timer expires. FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI) Pete

6 6

Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
by Nenad Trifunovic 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

It appears that for analysis purposes one has to separate access from switching. How much payload one brings to the exchange depends on port speed and protocol overhead. In that light, Frame Relay can bring similar amount of payload as Ethernet (comparable overhead) and preserve good properties of ATM (traffic flow separation). Regards, nenad p.s. both juniper 160 and cisco gsr can handle oc-48 frame relay, and they don't seem to be frame relay switches >Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:42 -0700 (PDT) >From: "William B. Norton" <wbn(a)equinix.com> >To: Nenad Trifunovic <nenad.trifunovic(a)wcom.com> >CC: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? > > >>Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay >>based exchange in your analysis? > >I don't have much insight into Frame Relay-based Internet Exchange Points ;-) >The majority of IXes around the world are ethernet-based, with some legacy >FDDI and a few ATM IXes. It is in these areas that I have done the most >data collection. The same analysis could be applied to peering across WANs >and MANs as compared with buying transit though. It might be interesting >provided I can get some market prices for transport and ports. > >Why look at ATM? Right now almost everyone I am speaking with is seeing >massive drops in transit and transport prices, even below the points I >quoted, but with no comparable price drop in ATM ports or transport into an >ATM cloud. These forces lead to a point where a connection to an ATM IX >makes no sense (from a strictly financial standpoint). I have another 10 >folks to walk through the paper to make sure I'm not missing anything in >the analysis, and I'll post to the list when the paper is available. If you >are interested I'd love to walk you through it to get your take. > >One point a couple other folks brought up during the review (paraphrasing) >"You can't talk about a 20% ATM cell tax on the ATM-based IX side without >counting the HDLC Framing Overhead (4%) for the OC-x circuit into an >ethernet-based IX." Since the "Effective Peering Bandwidth" is the max >peering that can be done across the peering infrastructure, this is a good >point and has now been factored into the model and analysis. > >Bill >

13 19

Re: Microslosh vision of the future
by blitz 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

I agree wholeheartedly, "let 'em starve".... At 18:17 8/11/02 -0700, you wrote: > Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and > can use any >resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has >that right. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If they convince customers >that they gain more than they lose, only a gun will make them buy it. I don't >see Bill Gates packing heat any time soon. > > *yawn* > >-- >David Schwartz ><davids(a)webmaster.com>

1 0

Re: Microslosh vision of the future
by Vadim Antonov 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

Microsoft already duped the software consumers into buying into fully proprietary software. Given the prevalent time horizon of average IT manager's thinking I fully expect Microsoft to get that stuff deployed before the poor saps start realizing they're being ripped. After that Microsoft will leverage their market power to exclude any competition. Exactly like they did it before on numerous occasions. Their PR budget is bigger than GDP of some nations. They're ruthless and show remarkable lack of respect to the notions of fairness or common good. Be afraid. --vadim On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, David Schwartz wrote: > Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and can use any > resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has > that right. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If they convince customers > that they gain more than they lose, only a gun will make them buy it. I don't > see Bill Gates packing heat any time soon. > > *yawn* > > -- > David Schwartz > <davids(a)webmaster.com>

2 1

Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
by Paul Vixie 11 Aug '02

11 Aug '02

> I suppose the discussion is what do you want from your exchange pt > operator and what do you NOT want. At the IXP level, "bits per month" always trumps "bits per second", and usually trumps "pennies per bit" as well. There are now a number of companies trying to sell wide area ethernet -- even some transoceanic but most just intracontinental. It doesn't work well for peering, though, just like SMDS and NetEdge didn't work well for peering. Too many moving parts and too little transparency. > Many people would not feel comfortable that circuit operators have > visibility and maintain stats on even NUMBER of packets passed.... That's one of several important reasons why neutrality matters.

1 0

damping
by Randy Bush 11 Aug '02

11 Aug '02

for research purposes. we want to send a periodic announce and a withdraw of a specific prefix. but we don't want to hit folk's damping policies. does anyone damp a swamp /24 which does an announce / withdraw on a two hour cycle? i.e. announce at 0,2,4,... and withdraw at 1,3,5,..? randy

1 0

Responses and update..
by Scott Walker 11 Aug '02

11 Aug '02

I have gotten a massive response.. I am going to organize it all and give everyone a nice list... Just give me a few to organize it :)

1 0

Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
by Nenad Trifunovic 10 Aug '02

10 Aug '02

Hello, Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay based exchange in your analysis? Regards, nenad >Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:11 -0700 (PDT) >From: "William B. Norton" <wbn(a)equinix.com> >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >Delivered-to: nanog-outgoing(a)trapdoor.merit.edu >Delivered-to: nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu >Delivered-to: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? > > >Hi again - > >A couple points (based on some interactions with folks privately). > >This is not an ATM is bad, or general ATM-bashing paper. It simply applies >the same Peering Analysis that ISPs are applying to determine if and when >IXes make sense. With the transit prices and transport prices dropping, >this is a reasonable question, worthy of greater analysis than "well, ATM >is expensive so ATM is bad." > >To give you a flavor, given a set of assumptions, OC-3 (155Mbps) transport >into an ATM-based IX has an "Effective Peering Range" (where peering across >them is cheaper than transit) of 75-90Mbps, while given the same >assumptions, Fast Ethernet-based IXes also at OC-3 have an Effective >Peering Range of 40-70Mbps. The "Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange" for this >ATM solution is $122/Mbps while FastE is $80/Mbps. > >At higher capacity the interconnect analysis is more dramatic: Given the >relatively high price point of transport and port cost, the Effective >Peering Range for ATM/OC-12 Peering is a narrow 236Mbps to 375Mbps with a >Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange of $69/Mbps. The GigE/OC-12 equivalent >range is 109Mbps-466Mbps with a Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange of $25/Mbps. > >What was unexpected in this analysis was the Effective Peering Range Gap. >When an ISP upgrades the ATM OC-3 to OC-12, the gap between the Effective >Peering Bandwidth of the OC-3 (90Mbps) and the Peering Breakeven Point (the >point at which the Peering Costs are totally offset by the cost savings of >peering vs. transit) at 208Mbps is huge. This 118Mbps gap is where an ISP >should rationally prefer to purchase transit until 208Mbps can be sent in >peering relationships over the ATM fabric, and only then upgrade the >peering connection to OC-12! > >There is also an Ethernet EPR Gap but it is only about 40 Mbps, and once at >the GigE/OC-12 capacity, it gets you an Effective Peering Range up to 475Mbps. > >In any case, this is the analysis that the paper walks through, and since >the spreadsheets are in the paper, one can muck around with the assumptions >and cost points, key of which are: > 1) ATM OC-3 Port Cost $8000/mo, ATM OC-3 Circuit Cost $3000/mo, > ATM OC-12 Port Cost $17000/mo, ATM OC-12 Circuit Cost $8000/mo > 2) FastE Port & Rack Space $2500/mo, OC-3 Circuit $3500/mo, > GigE Port & Rack Price$5000/mo, OC-12 Circuit $7000/mo > 3) Transit Price: if you peer at OC-3, you probably pay $125/Mbps, >peer at OC-12,$110/Mbps > 4) ATM Overhead (aka cell tax): 20% > 5) Assumption that ISP upgrade capacity when avg utilization >75% >Effective Peering BW > >Let me know if you violently object to any of these data points. These are >culled from a lot of conversations in the field. The rest of the paper is >simply plugging these data points into the equations and analyzing the results. > >Bill > >At 04:36 PM 8/7/2002 -0700, William B. Norton wrote: > >>Hi all - >> >>I've been working with a number of ISPs on a research paper that builds on >>the previous peering research papers (Internet Service Providers and >>Peering, A Business Case for Peering, The Art of Peering, Interconnection >>Strategies for ISPs, etc.) that applies the Peering Modelling tools in a >>comparison of ATM and Ethernet-based Internet Exchanges. Both of these >>IXes are compared against each other and against the cost of buying >>transit. The paper applies recent price quotes for transport and transit, >>costs for ATM and Ethernet-based IX participation, to answer the question: >> >> Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? >> >>I'd like to speak with additional ISP Peering Coordinators and Network >>Architects (preferable ones that have experience with peering across both >>ATM and Ethenet-based IXes) to walk through this paper and help me check >>that I have the technical and business details right. I would need about >>20 minutes or so on the phone to walk you through the paper, the financial >>models, the cost points, and get feedback on the conclusions...preferably >>sometime in the next couple weeks. >> >>If you are a Peering Coordinator I think you will find at least a couple >>of findings in this research *very* interesting. In any case, if you can >>help, please send me an e-mail at wbn(a)equinix.com and let me know when we >>could chat. >> >>Thanks - >> >>Bill >> >>PS - As with any these Peering White Papers, this white paper will be >>freely available once enough folks have walked through it and verify that >>we have things right. >> >>------------------------------------------ Abstract >>--------------------------------------------------- >>During the NSFNET transition from the Authorized Use Policy Internet to >>the Commercial Internet, several Network Access Points (NAPs) were created >>to facilitate the traffic exchange between the Internet Service Providers, >>two of which were ATM-based. Internet Service Providers were initially >>required to connect to three of the four NAPs in order to receive NSF >>funds (indirectly through their NSF-sponsored customers) during this >>transition period. >> >>During the years that followed, this requirement was dropped and the costs >>models of Internet Operation have changed dramatically. Technologies such >>as Wave Division Multiplexing and Long Haul Fiber Improvements have led to >>radical a decrease in the cost of transport and a corresponding drop in >>the price of transit. At the same, the cost of peering at ATM-based >>exchange points has not substantially dropped in cost, leading to the >>question in the Peering Coordinator Community: >> >> "Do ATM-based Internet Exchange Points make sense anymore?" >> >>In this paper we apply the peering financial models to this question, >>using current market prices to compare the price of transit against the >>costs of peering at ATM-based NAPs and Ethernet-based Internet Exchange >>Points. We build upon the previous research on Peering by introducing the >>notion of an Effective Peering Range (EPR) to describe the "useful life" >>of an Internet Exchange. We also highlight a potentially costly EPR Gap, >>an interim range between Peering Capacity points where peering is more >>expensive than transit. >> >>The financial models presented that produced the graphs are included in >>the Appendix so that ISPs can apply these cost models to their specific >>situation. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------------------ >William B. Norton <wbn(a)equinix.com> 650.315.8635 >Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison Equinix, Inc. >Yahoo Instant Messenger ID: WilliamBNorton >

4 3

laissez-faire DNS
by jnull 10 Aug '02

10 Aug '02

<all the standard disclaimers> Those whom I'm speaking to know the security and routing vulnerabilities associated with name resolution. (others, some background: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/schuba93addressing.html , http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/lioy00dns.html) Anyway, I wish I were providing solutions or even offering new information. Instead, I'm looking for some insight. It has come to my attention that some ISPs and most web-hosting companies I've researched allow their customers to freely configure their forward and reverse DNS through some sort of interface or ticket submission, neither of which goes through any sort of validation. This not only poses a serious security risk to their customers, but to any domain one of their customers choose to hi-jack. The argument of these companies is "there is not real validation process available" that "registrars list disclaimers with their whois information [that it may not be valid]" and "the hundreds of changes and discrepancies reported [each month] would cost too much administratively". While I see the validity in their arguments, I cannot help but to shutter at the possible repercussions of giving into such obstacles. Is it so impossible to implement an authentication process that could be script automated--at least weeding out all but the most dedicated poisoner? I've toyed around with a couple solutions I would like some input from "the inspired" before I attempt to publish anything. (And, props to Vixie for his work continuous work on Bind and those engineers collaborating on DNSSEC) j

1 0

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 10 Aug '02

10 Aug '02

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Aug 9 23:00:01 PDT 2002 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report-region.html for the regional version of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/autnums.html for a complete list of autonomous system number to name mappings as used by the CIDR-Report. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amount of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to GX Networks for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to CIDR Report <cidr-report(a)cisco.com>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 09Aug02 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 020802 112557 030802 112425 040802 112467 050802 112471 060802 112574 070802 112311 080802 112696 090802 112833 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 13412 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 8157 (4598 cidr, 3559 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 710 announced by AS3908 Largest number of classful routes: 1210 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 09Aug02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1090 836 254 23.3% Telstra Pty Ltd AS701 1210 970 240 19.8% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS17557 295 101 194 65.8% Pakistan Telecom AS6595 223 55 168 75.3% DoD Education Activity Network As AS852 546 405 141 25.8% Telus Advanced Communications AS16473 196 75 121 61.7% Bell South AS7018 798 680 118 14.8% AT&T AS4151 238 143 95 39.9% USDA AS19632 99 5 94 94.9% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS12302 120 27 93 77.5% MobiFon S.A. AS7303 159 68 91 57.2% Telecom Argentina Stet-France Tel AS16814 105 20 85 81.0% NSS, S.A. AS226 171 88 83 48.5% Los Nettos AS1239 500 418 82 16.4% Sprint AS1 457 382 75 16.4% GENUITY AS7046 293 219 74 25.3% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS577 267 193 74 27.7% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS2048 178 104 74 41.6% State of Louisiana AS4755 200 129 71 35.5% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS4323 411 340 71 17.3% Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS2149 327 257 70 21.4% Performance Systems, Inc. AS724 222 159 63 28.4% DLA Systems Automation Center AS4293 246 185 61 24.8% Cable & Wireless USA AS3464 165 104 61 37.0% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS19834 64 4 60 93.8% NetForce, Inc. AS10620 85 25 60 70.6% TVCABLE BOGOTA AS9498 86 29 57 66.3% BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. AS5515 243 186 57 23.5% Sonera Finland Autonomous System AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS3908 286 230 56 19.6% Supernet, Inc. Total 55400 42650 12750 23.0% For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0