- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Hosting Failover Question
by James DeMong 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

I am looking for a Rule of Thumb on failover for hosting, mostly tcp(webserver), some udp (audio/video streaming) stuff. My thought is that 5 seconds to failover when a network element(switch/router/load balancer/FW) fails is reasonable. How many seconds is reasonable for fail over in such a situation? Thanks in advance. __ James DeMong Network Design Specialist TELUS Advanced Communications Phone: (403) 503-3718 Email: James.DeMong(a)telus.com

1 0

Re: Internet Traffic Discovery?
by Walter Prue 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

>Anybody else remember a recent thread arguing that QoS should be kept at >the edge for IP? Well Peter Lothburg (please excuse the spelling) at the last NANOG demonstrated this fact rather well when he showed the effects of congestion on latency for various high speed links. I think he started with T3 then higher and higher up to OC-192. The graphs showed latency low until the links were at progressively higher percentages of 100% full. For links at OC-12 you were looking at links that were well above 90% full before any detectable increase in latency occured. That made the point pretty clear to me. Walt

1 0

And then there were two
by Sean Donelan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

If you accept the premise that "peer == equal" does that mean in the end there will be only two ISPs each with exactly 50% of the world's Internet because no one else will be an equal? I've never understood how the word "peer" mutated from its technical definition arising from its use in the BGP protocol to its use by marketing people. As far as I can tell, EGP (Exterior Gateway Protocol) originally used the term "neighbor." Berkeley used the berkelism "peer" in their software and RFC 911 documenting their experience, and the term stuck through EGP2, BGP1-4. If we still used the word "neighbor" would the phrase "Are you a neighbor?" have a different ring than "Are you a peer?" You can have lots of neighbors, even if you think you are superior to all of them.

2 1

RE: PSINet and C&W peering
by smd＠clock.org 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

| In my opinion, at every company there are people with visions "Just Say No". Sean.

1 0

RE: PSINet and C&W peering
by Smith, Marcellus 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

As the former Manager of Peering at internetMCI/C&W, I find this dispute with PSI very interesting. As mentioned in Mitchell Levinn's posting from yesterday: "C&W and PSINet upgraded circuits used for peering between the two networks earlier this year. C&W's recent action seems inconsistent with the strategy that led to these upgrades." This is the heart of the problem. When I left C&W in 2/00, I had created a plan to upgrade all of C&W's current peering from mostly DS3's to OC3's and OC12's and also increase the density of that peering. For example, if we were using 4 cities say, SF, Chicago, DC, NY, we would then add in Seattle, LA, Dallas, Atlanta, Denver and so on. Other parts of that plan included upgrading connection to the MAE's, AADS and installing peering routers at both the PAIX and Equinix facilities. When I walked out of the door, this plan was being executed. Somewhere down the line, it was derailed. In my opinion, at every company there are people with visions, once they leave even though it may take some time, that vision becomes clouded or it may even leave with that visionary. ------------------------ Marcellus Smith Director - Internetworking Strategies Office 703-287-4224 Cell 703-395-4275 marcellus(a)aleron.com www.aleron.com -----Original Message----- From: Mitchell Levinn [mailto:levinn@psi.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:35 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: levinn(a)psi.com Subject: PSINet and C&W peering C&W did indeed shutdown their peering connections to PSINet this weekend. While there are many potential explanations for their actions, I have no visibility into their decision process. I am disappointed with their decision to disconnect. PSINet continues to seek a resolution with C&W to restore normal connectivity in order to avoid further negative impact to both companies and the Internet. Their decision is hard to understand based on the following: - C&W and PSINet upgraded circuits used for peering between the two networks earlier this year. C&W's recent action seems inconsistent with the strategy that led to these upgrades. - PSINet's recent addition of direct private peering with several of C&W's transit customers relieved the peering connections between the networks of a couple hundred Mbps of traffic (improving connectivity overall and, undoubtedly, lowering costs for those transit customers). This is significant only because C&W claims PSINet no longer has sufficient traffic to justify the connections according to their published standards. In fact, PSINet's overall traffic continues to grow. - Most of the PSINet traffic previously destined for sites behind C&W has alternative paths through other providers. While this sounds like a generally good thing, especially given the actions C&W has taken, it does make it difficult for those that require certain traffic levels to be maintained consistently for peering. Specifically, C&W's customers (or C&W itself) could alter "natural" traffic flow to favor (or not) various connections to meet their published standards (or not). PSINet demonstrated to C&W that if naturally less favorable announcements were preferred, PSINet could make an almost arbitrarily large (or small) amount of traffic flow between the peers. Even so, in C&W's opinion, PSINet will not be able to comply with their peering policy's traffic standards. It is gratifying to note that even without C&W peering, substantially all of the traffic previously flowing between PSINet and C&W continues to be delivered. - At this time PSINet has not disabled the C&W peering interfaces nor decommissioned any facilities. If C&W chooses to, they can re-enable interfaces on their side and bring back the connectivity lost between their non-transit customers and PSINet. PSINet remains open to discuss with them a new bilateral peering agreement if they so choose. PSINet remains committed to servicing its customers and the Internet with the best possible infrastructure and policies. PSINet still maintains hundreds of peering connections with other ISPs throughout the world. While posting about matters between PSINet and its peering partners is not typical, the circumstances and questions arising from C&W's decision required some clarification. Hopefully this additional clarification helps everyone understand the current situation. -Mitch Levinn PSINet

1 0

Countdown until UUNET policy affects existing peers
by Sean Donelan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

After the fun and games between C&W and PSI.... Will UUNET actually carry through on its stated intention to retroactively apply its new peerin criteria to existing networks next January? > This Policy is effective January 5, 2001, and applies to all requests for > settlement-free interconnection with a WorldCom Internet Network, either > via dedicated connections ("direct peering") or via traffic exchange at > a multi-party network access point ("public peering"). WorldCom will not > apply the Policy with respect to existing agreements for settlement-free > interconnection via dedicated connections until January 5, 2002. Any wagers on how many networks will UUNET end up cutting off next January? Does either C&W or PSI meet UUNET's new criteria?

1 0

Re: C&W Peering
by ken harris. 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

>Resolution THE UNITED STATES restored connectivity to the >peering > router so are the tax dollars now paying for cw transit .. -ken harris.

1 0

C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering
by Sean Donelan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

On Wed, 06 June 2001, shane wrote: > Looks like the peering is back up as of 21:28:00 EDT. Wow, less than a week. Not too bad as peering disputes go. If you'd like to re-read older PSI peering dispute A person from ANS: http://www.interesting-people.org/archive/0435.html A person from PSI: http://www.interesting-people.org/archive/0436.html I would be interested in hearing what folks who once worked as the "peering coordinator" for a large ISP, and later worked as a smaller ISP trying to negotiate from different sides of the table think. I believe every major ISP has turned over their peering staff at least once, and some multiple times. Do the views hold constant no matter where they are, or are they flexible depending whether they are currently working at the big ISP or at the startup ISP?

1 0

RE: PSINet and C&W peering
by Los, Ralph 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Leo/List: I know as we grow and expand into the mesh of the Internet (can I still call it a mesh?) I will be dropping out PSINet connections (both hosting and access - sorry engineers, but your management is a bunch of blockheads) and not buying squat from those equally stupid people at C&W. I am a huge fan of the PSINet engineering staff, I have friends in the NYC hosting center, and all through their network...you guys keep what's left of the company going, you should be proud. I think PSINet's 'ego problem' is coming back to hurt them...but their management is STILl blind to the fact that you can't win (especially when your ship is taking water fast) by firing rounds at the arriving cavalry...ie, your current partners/friends in the industry. As far as C&W goes...if I was a customer of theirs I'd be on the phone right now asking about my credit for network downtime. This HAS to count as an SLA violation - if nothing else, milk 'em for money for being stupid. Screw it...I'm putting the rest of the new circuits I'm ordering through with Savvis. They've not disappointed me yet...delivering a DS-3 ,and a T-1 AHEAD, that's right, AHEAD of schedule, and being proactive...and having an IQ over 30 when answering a help line. Does anyone, especially those of you who are 'Internet Engineers' (I can't claim that), have any thoughts on the changing definition of a Tier-1 ISP? I mean, as far as I know, it meant that to be a Tier-1 ISP 'traffic accross the 'net would touch your network at least once in some point'....how do other companies now get away with that? ..blah...sorry, I got off on kind of a rant there..... <signoff> Ralph M. Los Asst. Vice-President, Internet Systems and Security EnvestNet Advisory Corp. rlos(a)envestnet.com (312) 827-3945 (direct) (312) 296-9003 (wireless w/voicemail) - -----Original Message----- From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:06 AM To: Mitchell Levinn Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: PSINet and C&W peering [Disclaimer: I work for MFN/Above.net, that that for what you will.] On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 09:35:20AM -0400, Mitchell Levinn wrote: > C&W did indeed shutdown their peering connections to PSINet > this weekend. While there are many potential explanations > for their actions, I have no visibility into their decision > process. I am disappointed with their decision to disconnect. > PSINet continues to seek a resolution with C&W to restore normal > connectivity in order to avoid further negative impact to both > companies and the Internet. Their decision is hard to understand > based on the following: I find this quite ironic, as PSINet decided to terminate peering with AboveNet in November of 2000. AboveNet was disappointed with PSI's decision, and had worked hard to avoid the disconnection. To this day, AboveNet is still unsure why PSI took that action, with the damage that resulted. The really interesting part, is the claims made below, which I will address one by one. > - C&W and PSINet upgraded circuits used for peering between > the two networks earlier this year. C&W's recent action > seems inconsistent with the strategy that led to these > upgrades. The same was true for PSINet and AboveNet. AboveNet ordered multiple OC-3 peering circuits to PSI. The first was turned up under our agreement. It was not until we tried to turn up the second that PSI decided to reevaluate AboveNet as a peer. We were very much caught by surprise when PSINet abruptly reverse course. > - PSINet's recent addition of direct private peering with several > of C&W's transit customers relieved the peering connections > between the networks of a couple hundred Mbps of traffic > (improving connectivity overall and, undoubtedly, lowering costs > for those transit customers). This is significant only because > C&W claims PSINet no longer has sufficient traffic to justify > the connections according to their published standards. In > fact, PSINet's overall traffic continues to grow. This one one of the reasons mentioned by PSINet in the disconnection proceedings for AboveNet. Clearly AboveNet could not be an important peer due to the lack of traffic. AboveNet has maintained since day one of its existance a very open peering policy, and the low traffic to PSI was very much in part due to the robust peering that AboveNet had with many of PSI's downstreams. In all fairness, the issue of traffic ratio also came up with PSINet (so they don't come back and claim they never cared about traffic levels, just ratio). The ratio is equally funny though, due to the next point. > - Most of the PSINet traffic previously destined for sites > behind C&W has alternative paths through other providers. > While this sounds like a generally good thing, especially given > the actions C&W has taken, it does make it difficult for those > that require certain traffic levels to be maintained consistently > for peering. Specifically, C&W's customers (or C&W itself) could > alter "natural" traffic flow to favor (or not) various > connections > to meet their published standards (or not). PSINet demonstrated > to C&W that if naturally less favorable announcements were > preferred, PSINet could make an almost arbitrarily large (or > small) amount of traffic flow between the peers. Even so, in > C&W's opinion, PSINet will not be able to comply with their > peering policy's traffic standards. It is gratifying to note > that even without C&W peering, substantially all of the > traffic previously flowing between PSINet and C&W continues to > be delivered. This is true for any provider with a reasonable amount of traffic. With the number of multi-homed customers behind {Sprint, C&W, UUnet, AT&T, Genuity, Level 3, Qwest} (and possibly others) it is easy to move hundreds of megabits of traffic between those providers while still honoring peering agreements. It is something PSINet ignored, as well as C&W. The fact is, most large ISP's can set the ration on any given peering interface to be whatever they want, of course at the expense of altering a ratio somewhere else. It's like a baloon, the total volume (ratio) is fixed, but by squeezing or pulling it you can make it into limitless shapes. > - At this time PSINet has not disabled the C&W peering interfaces > nor decommissioned any facilities. If C&W chooses to, they can > re-enable interfaces on their side and bring back the > connectivity > lost between their non-transit customers and PSINet. PSINet > remains open to discuss with them a new bilateral peering > agreement if they so choose. How lovely. :-) Let me try from our side "At this time AboveNet has not disabled PSINet's peering interfaces nor decommissioned any facilities, if PSI chooses to, they can re-enable interfaces on their side and bring back the connectivity lost..." AboveNet is of course always open to discussing peering with PSINet, we hold no grudges. > PSINet remains committed to servicing its customers and the > Internet with the best possible infrastructure and policies. > PSINet still > maintains hundreds of peering connections with other ISPs > throughout the world. While posting about matters between PSINet > and its > peering partners is not typical, the circumstances and questions > arising from C&W's decision required some clarification. Hopefully > this additional clarification helps everyone understand the current > situation. Now this is clearly not true. As much as we had to swallow or pride to do it, AboveNet took steps to make sure that even though PSINet terminated peering, AboveNet customers experienced uninterrupted (if a bit rocky for a short time) connectivity to PSINet. Our commitment to our customers included making sure they could connect to PSINet. PSINet clearly doesn't care if their customers can reach C&W. I feel no sympathy for PSINet, as I am personally a firm believer in "connectivity is its own reward", and I think the fairly open AboveNet peering policy reflects that as well. No one wins when connectivity is broken like this, I have to believe both C&W and PSI customers are feeling some real pain right now. I hope this lesson makes people think twice about terminating such peering relationships in the future. That said, the irony here is amazing. PSINet has been put in the exact same position by C&W that they decided to put AboveNet (and possibly others, I'll let them comment on their situation) into several months ago, and isn't even big enough to work around the problem. "What goes around comes around" is very often true, the provider that was big yesterday can be small tomorrow, and could possibly even come back to be big again. If PSINet would like to start down the road to recovery, I suggest they start with mending some of the relationships they chose to sever in the past. If a PSINet representative would like to talk about the AboveNet situation in particular, please mail me privately and I'll make sure you get in touch with the right people. Also, I would like to suggest that if you are a Cable and Wireless customer, and disagree with their current action of terminating peering relationships (we have nasa.gov and psi.net confirmed on Nanog, and rumors of many others in the works) I suggest you let them know how you feel, first with your words, and if that doesn't work with your dollars, by taking them elsewhere. I know a lot of people think ISP's don't listen to their customers, and sometimes it may seem that they don't, but by and large they do try to keep their customer base happy. - -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOx1mtnM6eMaR3AeZEQKiNACfZVnYOkpVA2xJ/Sxb64T0ObQO90EAninx sFpZiJF8vSb9+EalU/Yafux3 =uv1R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: small exchanges (was: Re: PSINet and C&W peering)
by Jim Mercer 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:11:31PM -0400, Dave Snodgrass wrote: > Yeah, Same from everywhere. Heres weirdness: (broken routes to www.torix.net) yeah, well, we are network techies, not web designers. the www.torix.net site has been slated for overhaul for a while, but nobody has really gotten around to it. interesting info can be had from: http://torix.golden.net/~torix/ -- [ Jim Mercer jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ] [ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]

3 2