- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Postmasters Anonymous
by Martin Hannigan 30 Jun '02

30 Jun '02

At 09:16 PM 6/29/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: >Sorry for interrupting our quarterly peering debate, but I'd like to >ask if there are any groups for people who are Postmasters (abuse, spam, >dmca, etc)? I know there are many groups for people who want to complain >about those subjects, but I was wondering if there are groups for people >who have to handle the complaints. There's a lot of them. A bunch are "under cover". Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

2 1

Bellsouth DSL in Chattanooga - Whose Lines?
by CARL.P.HIRSCH＠sargentlundy.com 30 Jun '02

30 Jun '02

Does Bellsouth use its own infrastructure for consumer/business ADSL (specifically in Chattanooga, TN), or does it rely on someone else's lines to get from the local central office to the nearest peering exchange? I've seen outfits like Covad use Exodus/C&W, but I'm imagining a RBOC like BellSouth prefers to use its own infrastructure. What is the closest peering point that would be used in Chattanooga, anyhow? thanks, -carl hirsch

2 1

Re: Sprint peering policy
by Paul Vixie 30 Jun '02

30 Jun '02

> : when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention > : has always resulted. even when the scope is international. i've not > : been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not > : stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers. > > Let's hope they don't decide to do that. i won't take a position on this, other than that "dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability". wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer ("citizen"). if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted: 1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life (& economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here. none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of "self regulation" currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.

11 12

Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]
by David Meyer 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

Stephen, >> I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering >> with the downstreams will improve user quality of service by >> both reducing latency and taking unnecessary points of failure >> out of the network. Is it really common sense? If so, is the common sense correct? In fact, there is a lot of recent work that suggests that there can be a very poor (and as it turns out poorly understood) interaction between richness of interconnection and BGP dynamics; this is due, at least in part, to amplification and coupling effects that appear in some large systems. So many argue that that given the current set of protocols (i.e. BGP and its implementations), increased topological richness beyond some threshold can actually hurt robustness and reliability. And just to be clear about this, this is not a statement about peering policies themselves (I'm explicitly not commenting on that), but rather about our current understanding of some of the dynamics that exist in today's Internet. I've been trying to capture some of this in the following document (with the able help of Randy, Tim, and many others): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-03.txt On the topic of interconnection richness and its (possibly unanticipated) effects, Craig and Abha's early work on this is maybe the canonical reference. For something a little more recent, see "What is the Sound of One Route Flapping", Timothy G. Griffin, IPAM Workshop on Large-Scale Communication Networks: Topology, Routing, Traffic, and Control, March, 2002. In any event, I guess the bottom line here is that sometimes what looks like common sense (or even what we have a tendency to call "conventional wisdom") may just be wrong. Dave

5 5

Re: Sprint peering policy
by Patrick W. Gilmore 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

At 10:28 AM 6/29/2002 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >> OTOH, some networks who peered with anyone and everyone did not >> survive. While some networks who peered with no one have also died. (And >> some who peer with no one just over-report EBITDA by more than the GNP of >> many countries. :-) So I am not sure there is any strong evidence that >> peering or not is good for long term economic viability. > >I doubt peering for a large "tier 1" is directly affecting their economic >state, >they will see all networks via peers with their fellow "tier 1" networks and >peering further downstream isnt going to alter cost.. Of course they alter costs. NAP fees, OC lines, router interfaces, management of BGP sessions, etc., etc. all cost money. Furthermore, peering at 15 places probably requires less of a national backbone than peering at 4 places because you have fewer and closer exit points, which may reduce internal costs. Then again, the fees for 15 NAPs, plus 15 OC lines, plus 15 router cards, plus whatever else may well be more than the cost of increasing your national backbone. And as for being able "see all networks" just because you are a "Tier 1", do you mean like Above.Net and PSI? Or PSI and C&W when they recently had a bit of an argument? Or Exodus and BBN a while ago? Or any of a gazillion other examples? As shown on this list, just because you think you are a "Tier 1" these days does not guarantee you a view to all other networks. And it *certainly* does not guarantee you anywhere near an optimal path to all prefixes in the global Peering does affect both stability and economics. I just think it affects them differently than most "tier 1" players - the more you peer, the better your economics. They think that the less you peer, the better your economics because then people will pay you to get to your backbone. >> I do believe there is operational evidence that a more open peering policy >> can reduce latency to off-net locations, but I am sure there are other >> reasons to close your peering policy. > >I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering with the >downstreams will improve user quality of service by both reducing latency and >taking unnecessary points of failure out of the network. This is why I think peering more will help you economically. Peering less might get you a few more downstreams, but we how many people are really ready to peer at the big peering points? 200? 500? And how many downstreams does someone like UU or Sprint have? 20,000? 50,000? Probably more. KPNQwest claimed they had over 100,000 business customers before they went belly up, and I bet US carriers have more. So they are trading reduced performance and reliability, plus pissing off the rest of the Internet community, for the *potential* to sign less than 1% of their current base. (Remember, just because SmallISP.com cannot peer with UU, C&W, Sprint, AT&T, Qwest, L3, etc. does not mean he will buy from all of them.) All that said, there are other reasons for big networks not to peer with anyone who asks. Both economic and technical reasons. I just personally feel the bar is too high for most big players. Then again, I repeat, the Internet is still (mostly) regulation free, so if you own a network, you get to peer - or not - with whomever you please. And I would not have it any other way. >Steve -- TTFN, patrick

1 0

Re: Sprint peering policy
by ren 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

Perhaps broadband in the UK is different than in the US, but I can tell you peering around the legacy networks has made a huge difference at the network I peerlead for. Customers are getting smart and have come to discover 'Tier 1' is an empty status. Networks evolve and traffic sources/destinations shift. Hunt for the growing traffic, not just a network brand that may be in need of a facelift. Steve, I hope you/Opal Telecom are looking into the Adlex tools. Play with the traffic tracker and find out who is in your top 10, top 20, etc. circles at different times of the day/week. Chase the band between 20&30 and see what a difference you can make in terms of performance for your network. It is amazing how quickly you can discover that some networks are out there under multiple ASNs (legal and other reasons prevail) and when peered with that 'entity' you can punt a former top 10 down a band. Adlex, while expensive, can help prove your theory is inaccurate. Adlex has paid for itself in just a matter of months from my perspective <G> -ren At 10:37 AM 6/29/2002 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >"Peering around" only works if the networks the broadband provider wants to >reach are buying from another network that they can get peering with, as most >tier1's have similar i'll call it 'fascist' peering regimes they will not be >able to peer around. > >They will of course be able to get peering with smaller providers but >these are >individually small gains.. > >Steve

1 0

Re: Sprint peering policy
by Vijay Gill 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

"Daniel Golding" <dgolding(a)sockeye.com> writes: > One is, Sprint won't peer with you. I'm not even sure who you work for, but > rest assured, they will not peer with you. Time spent on this might be > better utilized reading some of Bill Norton's excellent intro to peering Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in: 1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status then I am sure things can happen. Keeping the above definition of peering in mind, and not the current accepted definition of what "peering" means, things suddenly become crystal clear. vijay "time to put back the peer in peering" gill

4 3

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 28 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 28Jun02 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 210602 111582 220602 111717 230602 111670 240602 111786 250602 111981 260602 111996 270602 111954 280602 111076 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: 13191 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 8060 (4540 cidr, 3520 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 623 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1237 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 28Jun02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1097 846 251 22.9% Telstra Pty Ltd AS701 1237 989 248 20.0% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS17557 298 112 186 62.4% Pakistan Telecom AS6595 204 58 146 71.6% DoD Education Activity Network As AS7018 808 677 131 16.2% AT&T AS852 479 352 127 26.5% Telus Advanced Communications AS16473 193 75 118 61.1% Bell South AS4151 237 142 95 40.1% USDA AS19632 98 4 94 95.9% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS1239 523 430 93 17.8% Sprint AS12302 123 30 93 75.6% MobiFon S.A. AS7303 159 68 91 57.2% Telecom Argentina Stet-France Tel AS7046 325 236 89 27.4% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS16814 105 20 85 81.0% NSS, S.A. AS226 176 92 84 47.7% Los Nettos AS2048 182 104 78 42.9% State of Louisiana AS4755 205 132 73 35.6% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS577 262 190 72 27.5% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS4323 408 339 69 16.9% Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS3464 164 103 61 37.2% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS19834 64 4 60 93.8% NetForce, Inc. AS10620 83 23 60 72.3% TVCABLE BOGOTA AS724 216 157 59 27.3% DLA Systems Automation Center AS6123 70 13 57 81.4% Web Professionals AS3908 310 253 57 18.4% Supernet, Inc. AS209 315 258 57 18.1% Qwest AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS1 444 388 56 12.6% GENUITY AS9051 81 26 55 67.9% INCONET Autonomous System AS9498 80 27 53 66.2% BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. Total 54876 42309 12567 22.9% 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

Re: How important is IM? was RE: How important is the PSTN
by Roger Marquis 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

Rizzo Frank <frank.rizzo(a)ghettocolo.com> wrote: > By "IM" I assume you're referring to Instant Messaging as an ideal, not > any particular protocol or vendor implementation. Which begs the > question, is "IM" is a risk IM has been a risk since it was introduced as the Unix `talk` program. Responsible corporate security policy should at least address it. Many such policies, including some I wrote after this post, have forbidden IM for some time now. <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=_jfe4.1731%24T01.55…> Whether blocking IM is a prudent strategy at your organization depends on the value of the data "messaged", the IM application, and routing of IM packets. In common use IM does expose many organizations to a non-trivial risk of corporate espionage. -- Roger Marquis (ex-CSO) Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/

4 3

Re: How important is IM? was RE: How important is the PSTN
by Steven M. Bellovin 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

In message <Pine.GSO.4.40.0206282129130.7026-100000(a)clifden.donelan.com>, Sean Donelan writes: > > >Despite what security people say, if you are going to use e-mail, the web >or IM, the question is how can you do it safely? Heck, I read a recent >article how even the US military is starting to use a version of IM for >its battlefield coordination of activity. > While "just say no" sometimes applies, competent security understand the concept of "business need". You're absolutely right about this: > So instead of just saying no, how about coming up with same ways to > solve the how to do it securely. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

1 0