- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 28 Jul '01

28 Jul '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jul 27 23:00:00 PDT 2001 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. 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is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes.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 amont 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>. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 27Jul01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 200701 100950 210701 101113 220701 101068 230701 101044 240701 101039 250701 101495 260701 101472 270701 101541 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 82.105.0.0/16 from AS3269 *** Bogus 82.105.128.0/17 from AS3269 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 11297 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 6733 (3865 cidr, 2868 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 869 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1414 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 27Jul01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1330 989 341 25.6% Telstra Pty Ltd AS701 1414 1199 215 15.2% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4293 385 276 109 28.3% Cable & Wireless USA AS6595 167 60 107 64.1% DoD Education Activity Networ AS6429 200 101 99 49.5% RdC Internet AS13999 104 8 96 92.3% Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. AS705 237 142 95 40.1% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4755 215 121 94 43.7% VSNL India AS7018 723 633 90 12.4% AT&T AS2551 429 342 87 20.3% NETCOM On-Line Communication AS4151 164 80 84 51.2% USDA AS8013 295 216 79 26.8% PSINet Ltd. Canada AS724 232 159 73 31.5% DLA Systems Automation Center AS577 247 174 73 29.6% Bell Canada AS7046 314 247 67 21.3% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS16473 127 60 67 52.8% Bell South AS6471 124 60 64 51.6% ENTEL CHILE S.A. AS3464 152 90 62 40.8% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS4200 120 60 60 50.0% Apex Global Information Servi AS1239 461 402 59 12.8% Sprint ICM-Inria AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS12302 89 33 56 62.9% MobiFon S.A. AS1 567 511 56 9.9% BBN Planet AS226 143 90 53 37.1% Los Nettos AS6413 65 13 52 80.0% Southern Online Systems, Inc. AS3908 200 149 51 25.5% Supernet, Inc. AS17561 112 61 51 45.5% Internet Service West Austral AS852 214 164 50 23.4% Telus Advanced Communications AS9842 54 5 49 90.7% Lotte Data Communication Comp AS4323 235 186 49 20.9% Time Warner Communications, I 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

2 1

Choosing ISP for T1 connectivity -2
by Alexander Avtsin 28 Jul '01

28 Jul '01

Hello again, Thank you for all the information you sent to me after my original posting. After hearing some "not so good" opinions regarding Genuity, I'd like to slightly rephrase my question: There's a report at ispworld http://www.ispworld.com/isp/images/geometric_mean.gif >From the test one can see that first 14-20 positions are very similar in performance, so what's important for us is virtually no downtime (not in SLA, but in reality) and quick tech support response to troubleshoot the problem (ICG doesn't have tech in their POP in Newark...) Now aside from the test, would YOU recommend one provider or another based on your OWN experience? I don't think any public resource exists which compares reliability of backbones, including last mile link - how stable are the routers that handle your particular T1...If it does exist, I'll appreciate any pointers. We experienced a lot of problems when ICG Newark POP went down on couple of occasions and they don't have a redundant link to anywhere else.... Thank you very much for you help. Alex Avtsin Network Engineer 212-924-5400 Ext:1185

2 1

Broadwing
by johns＠sstar.com 27 Jul '01

27 Jul '01

Broadwing sold me two local PRI's for dial-in back in mid Sept. After missing two "firm completion dates" (with associated penalties) they decided that they couldn't deliver what the sold to me unless I was willing to pay them 5c per minute for all of the calls since they couldn't support my local phone number, only an 800 number. This was weeks after the PRI's were installed. The sales rep kept assuring me that everything was OK, right up to the end. All of their order processing people signed off on it too. In short, they wasted 5 months of my time (and about 40 hours personally which I spent with them troubleshooting the PRI installation which had 4 separate bugs on their end). They even had the nerve to send me a first month's bill, and it was at a higher rate than I had signed for! Now they are saying that they will be generous and let ME out of the contract. It seems that an addendum has surfaced in which I agreed to the long distance charges. Only problem is that the signature on the page is not mine. Three months after the whole affair was over, a lawyer called to collect on bills which they haven't even been sending to me. Bottom line: Totally incompetent sales rep, order processor, and office manager. Slowest internal processing I've ever seen (the 2nd "expedited" order took longer than the 1st!). Lots of technical problems. A billing department without a clue. And apparently someone who is willing to commit fraud to boot. Perhaps your luck will be better. John % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % John Souvestre Southern Star www.sstar.com % % johns(a)sstar.com 504-888-3348 New Orleans, LA % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

1 0

The large ISPs and Peering
by Peering Resistance 27 Jul '01

27 Jul '01

This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone involved with the ISP world should know about. Aproximately 8 months ago, several of the very largest ISPs, ones with names like WorldCom, Sprint, CW, Genuity, and others, came together to discuss the concept of peering. The all peered with each other, most with very large peering circuits - OC-12 or above. The problem was that the provisioning time and effort required for these circuits was getting quite out of control. Costs of interconnects were also high. So, these large providers did the "unthinkable". They decided to issue an RFP to 8 sites around the US, which they would jointly inhabit for purposes of peering. In order to avoid the appearence of collusion, they all issued similar RFPs, each originating from their own company, but otherwise almost identical. And the sites were choosen using essentially identical criteria. So, unsurprisingly, the same 8 sites were choosen, in such cities as Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, DC, and others. There are several rumors floating about as to which sites were choosen. This is unconfirmed and conjecture, so I won't go into it for this email. The key questions... 1) What are the selected sites? 2) How do the rest of us play? 3) Why wasn't this process more open? I know that this is a true situation, as I have confirmation from three different sources, and have seen copies of several of the RFCs. I eagerly await the comments of those providers involved with this effort, and hope that this will lead to a more open internet. - PR __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

15 23

Brokered Private Peering Group?
by Tim Irwin 27 Jul '01

27 Jul '01

Anybody been following the development of the Brokered Private Peering Group? Who are the current participants? What is the current status? There seemed to be a lot of info in the media a while back, but I can't seem to find much info that's recent. Thanks, Tim -- Tim Irwin, Sr. Engineer Architecture & Engineering BellSouth.net, Inc. e-mail: tim(a)eng.bellsouth.net office: 678.441.7951 "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark Twain

2 1

Relative ISP size (was Broadwing)
by David Barak 27 Jul '01

27 Jul '01

Quoth Karyn: >Just remember that Broadwing is not actually a Tier 1 >provider. They are a >Tier 2 striving to become a Tier 1. When I was >looking at them, I found >that you could obtain just as good or better pricing >from an actual Tier 1 >provider. Check out Exodus, Verio, and Genuity. Last >I checked they were >offering some seriously competitive pricing on OCs. I just thought your list of Tier 1 providers was interesting - that gets back to the (very) old argument about exactly what "Tier-1" means, and that tends to be a religious argument for many. I like the Skitter approach myself - www.caida.org - if they're in red or yellow, they're Tier 1, if purple, tier 2... David Barak "Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?" - Juvenal __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

2 1

RE: Broadwing
by Miller, Steve 27 Jul '01

27 Jul '01

dial, dedicated?? which are you looking for? -steve -----Original Message----- From: Hansel E. Lee Jr. [mailto:hansel.lee@corp.winfirst.com] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:59 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Broadwing Sensitivity: Confidential All, I'm considering using Broadwing for some IP transport and am interested in hearing feedback from anyone else who is currently using them. Reliable/Unreliable, Good service? Hansel E. Lee Jr. Director of IP Engineering Western Integrated Networks, LLC ( WINfirst <http://www.winfirst.com> ) 2000 S Colorado Blvd, 2-800 Denver, CO 80222 (303) 407-1685 (office) (303) 601-1174 (cell) (978) 246-0378 (fax)

3 2

IXP Map..?
by D2 27 Jul '01

27 Jul '01

Hey guys - Can any one help? I am trying to find out if anyone has a Geographical World Map (gif bmp etc) with all the Public IXPs IX MAE etc marked on it. Search engines tell me that www.ep.net is the place to go, but sadly it seems to have been a place which is now gone...(!) telegeography has a great text list, but I wondered if anyone has a globe map.. My realworld geography is bad and it will take ages to locate all 200 IXPs and mark them out! I am sure it is something already done and wonder if any NANOG folks can help.. :) Dom Robinson : D2 Consulting ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'data in motion' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IP Distribution Consultancy eMail: d2(a)d2consulting.co.uk www.d2consulting.co.uk (Also for Global-MIX ltd)

5 5

Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
by Sean Donelan 27 Jul '01

27 Jul '01

On Thu, 26 July 2001, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > At the time, the "center of the universe" was AS690, which was paid > for by US taxpayer money and consequently had an AUP. The NAPs were > envisioned as a transitional mechanism away from that arrangement. A > lot of us at the time wondered aloud why NSF needed to provide a stamp > of approval on US-based exchange points, as the FIXes, MAE East, and > Milo's setup at NASA-Ames were already going concerns without any kind > of endorsement from the NSF. Some companies (notably UUnet) thought > this was gratuitous enough that they never showed up at any NAPs. If I recall, the objection was to using ATM for a exchange fabric, because several people thought it was less reliable at the time. I thought UUNET was at the New York NAP (SPRINT Pennsauken, NJ) as well as the MAE-East alternate NAP, which used FDDI. There were several ISPs at that time which only connected to FDDI/Gigaswitch based exchange points, and shunned the ATM exchange points.

3 2

Discovering AS Path confederation...
by Chris Rapier 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

I was wondering if anyone knew how to do as path confederation discovery. Let me explain... I'm plotting observed traffic against BGP reported AS paths to get a logical view of traffic flow in a smallish network (I2). However, it was pointed out to me (by Bradley Huffaker) that the BGP reported path does not always correspond to the ASes a packet actually traverses. He provided me with some skitter data and routing table archives and I was able to confirm this on both his data and my own data. My contention is that the vast majority of this seeming divergence is the result of AS confederation and not any specific failure of the protocol (or implementation) as a whole. However, in light of what I am trying to do for my research, its important that I have more than a gut feeling to back up this claim. What I was thinking of doing was to collect a large number of traces and their corresponding traversed ASes and run statistical analysis on it to infer the confederations. If these confederations are mostly stable then I can say the observed divergence corresponds to this previously seen path. E.g.... I run a trace and find it traverses 701 702 8414 2912 7262 101 while the route table indicates its path should be 701 7262 101. If I know that 701 is confederating 8414 and 2912 then I know that the actual path corresponds to the routing table. However, I first need to determine that UUnet if actually doing that. At this point I'm stuck on that step and could use any pointers or insights people might have. Obviously, the best thing would be a paper that has already done exactly this so I can move on but I'll take anything. :) Chris Rapier

4 5