- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
by Richard A. Steenbergen 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 01:41:08PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > > > No its not obvious. The SNMP byte counters are odometers - as long as > > you get two clean samples per counter wrap you can accurately count > > bytes. The trick is to ensure that you get a minimum of two clean > > samples of the odometer reading per counter wrap - for high speed > > interfaces that typically implies reading the MIB2 64 bit interface > > counters, or triggering an SNMP poll at relatively tight time > > intervals. > > 2^64 is 1.844 * 10^19 > > at 2.5 gb/s (OC48 line speed) (2,500,000,000 bits/sec), you transfer > 312,500,000 bytes/sec, or 298 megabytes/sec. > > 2^64 / 312,500,000 = 6.189 * 10^16 seconds per rollover. > > or, 1.719 * 10^13 hours > or, 1,962,741,057 years. > > My point: at least for the near future, 64 bit counters won't roll. Or thought about another way: 2^64 = 18446744073709551616 bytes/sec = 147573952589676412928 bits/sec. Which means a 64 bit counter will roll over in 5 minutes at 491913175298921376 bits/sec, or 491Pbps (Petabits/sec). Under the current naming scheme, this will be OC-9444732864. Better start planning for 128 bit counters, we wouldn't want to be stuck in something which doesn't scale. :P -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

RE: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
by E.B. Dreger 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

(Taking this back on list for people to critique as they please.) > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 21:50:39 -0700 > From: David Schwartz <davids(a)webmaster.com> [ snip ] > The problem with these other billing methods is primarily that they fail > to reward people for taking effort to smooth out their usage. If my > customers can do their bulk transfers off-peak, I'd like to reward them > for it. That way they save me money. People would probably balk at the complexity and variability, but I've contemplated a two-stage billing model... Have the base rate determined purely by traffic volume, i.e. GB/mo. Now apply an adjustment factor based on x = (95th / mean). x = 1.00 is perfectly flat; give substantial discount x = 1.50 is a moderate sine wave; consider this typical T-3 x = 2.50 is a typical T-1 x = 1.00 to 1.249# --> 25% off x = 1.25 to 1.399# --> 10% off x = 1.40 to 1.799# --> standard rate x = 1.80 to 2.499# --> 10% surcharge x = 2.50 up ---------> 25% surcharge and so on. I'd need to look at numbers, so don't take the above as the right mix, but you get the idea. Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. EverQuick Internet Division Phone: (316) 794-8922 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
by Paul A Vixie 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

> i did not know abovenet was around in '89-90. thanks for the info. i'm ready to recant but i'd like to see the reference first.

2 1

apologia
by Paul A Vixie 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

i have now received private confirmation by several people, one of whom worked at uunet before abovenet was founded, telling me that abovenet was not first to offer 95th percentile. in my limited defense i have to say that abovenet was the first i ever bought from who offered it that way, but it now appears that my experiences in buying transit were very limited. my apologies to all. next time i promise to check my facts before posting.

1 0

RE: C&W Peering Problem?
by Sean Donelan 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

On Fri, 01 June 2001, Steve Schaefer wrote: > How is it that UUNet is getting a free ride? The ILEC's customer pays > for that line every month. (OK, the customer underpays, but the ILEC > gets to make it up in access charges as part of the regulation process.) > > The only reason that the traffic is unbalanced is that the ILEC's wrote > the rules to favor that traffic arrangement. Too late to whine about it. Since on the Internet the sender pays for sent traffic, and the receiver pays for received traffic, I've never understood the argument advanced by BBN/Genuity, UUNET and now apparently C&W that unbalanced traffic means someone is getting a free ride. If the customer pays flat-rate, you collect the same amount of money no matter how little traffic they send or receive. The 95% charging used by some providers is the greater of *either* inbound or outbound traffic. So imbalanced traffic to or from your customers is paid by your customers. So, can anyone explain why C&W, UUNET or Genuity care about traffic balance, other than to limit competition by providers who are better at attracting particular types of customers than them? If you are good at being a webhoster, your traffic will have one profile. If you are good at being an access provider, your traffic will have another profile. If you are mediocre at everything, I guess your traffic will be balanced.

7 6

Re: The early days of peering
by Sean Donelan 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

On Sat, 02 June 2001, Jerry Scharf wrote: > It was when multiple connection points came in that traffic differential > became an issue. Those requirements were put in when the perceived center of > business for the "other ISPs" was local dial connection and bandwidth times > distance was used to justify the multiple connections, nationwide networks... > Business changed and now the colos are facing the same arguement for being on > the opposite side of the spectrum. In "the early days" UUNET was a net exporter of traffic due to its original business the UUCP/USENET hub and hosting FTP.UU.NET. With USENET, one message went into UUNET, and they broadcast thousands of copies to their UUCP/USENET customers. Likewise, with FTP one copy of X11 was uploaded to ftp.uu.net and thousands of copies were downloaded.

1 0

Limited peering battle (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
by Sean Donelan 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

On Fri, 01 June 2001, Mike Leber wrote: > On 1 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote: > > So, can anyone explain why C&W, UUNET or Genuity care about traffic > > balance, other than to limit competition by providers who are better > > at attracting particular types of customers than them? > > You have the cart before the horse (effect before cause), there are really > two principles that come before the example policy effect above. They are > truisms. I understand that, however my interest was much more limited than launching an incindary device into another peering battle. I'm want to understand why a 1.5:1, or 2:1 balance is required. What technical purpose does it achieve. I've asked folks from large and small providers about this, and they've told me a variety of reasons. But none of the reasons, so far, have held technical merit in the final analysis. There were always alternatives which did not require maintaining a inverse market share balance between providers. ANS used to require cold potato routing, is it time to bring it back? I know, provider-based CIDR makes that difficult.

2 1

RE: C&W Peering Problem?
by Sean Donelan 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

On Fri, 01 June 2001, "Scott Patterson" wrote: > Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction > its in, it just has to be balanced. I wonder how is the end of reciprocal compensation going to affect large dial modem pool providers (e.g. UUNET, Genuity). Should UUNET compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their modem pools at a few cents per minute. Obviously the traffic is extremely imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's network?

3 2

The early days of peering
by Sean Donelan 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

While cleaning up some old mail, I came across this old note about the early days of interconnecting networks. I especially like the error counters, it appears congestion/packet drops have been a peering issue since the very earliest days. Circa September 1999: ==================================== Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX) - ---------------------------------- The T1 Line to CERFNet became operational linking CERFNet to the other CIX member network providers (Alternet and PSINet). Traffic statistics are being gathered via SNMP and reports are being generated. The following report outlines CIX-WEST usage for the month of August 1991. CIX In Out Member Octets Packets Errors Octets Packets Errors - ------------ -------------------------------- -------------------------------- Alternet 6405681877 23290775 2823 2436041753 18012204 0 CERFNet 185674302 1922536 453890 564414690 3092209 0 PSINet 2615511850 18930171 34 6166635910 22541248 6777 Starting: Aug 7 1991 at 09:27 Ending: Aug 31 1991 at 23:54 SNMP Polling Intervals: 2590 SNMP Polling Frequency: 15 minutes In - data entering the CIX member network Out - data exiting the CIX member network At the present time, approximately 370 networks within Alternet, CERFNet, and PSINet are using the CIX-WEST. Send mail to info(a)cix.org for information regarding the CIX. Mark Fedor fedor(a)psi.com

2 1

The original UUNET opinion on asymetric traffic settlements
by Sean Donelan 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

Never mind, I think I found my answer about asymetric settlement policies between Internet providers. ================================== Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:29:33 -0400 From: rick(a)uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams) To: p00136(a)psilink.com, com-priv(a)psi.com > There is no settlement fee in the CIX agreement. This works well if > there is no significant net flow between any two networks in CIX. Does > this assumption hold up in fact? Which assumption? Or the implied and erroneous assumption that if the trafic flow is asymmetric settlements are encessary? Given no transit traffic, there is no need for settlements. You have one of two cases: 1) both ends of the connection are by the same provider. If so, then settling with yourself is obviously ludicrous. 2) Each end of the connection is by a different provider. Now, since each end of the connection is supplied by a provider who is presumably reasonably compensated for that provision, why is any "settlement" necessary. Each customer is already paying for his half circuit. Why do you need to charge more? Most settlement proposals are a very thinly disguised "tax" and have nothing to do with actual costs or anything else for that matter. Of course some of the taxes are enticing as a group of representatives get to decide how best to spend the tax "for the comon good". However, its still a tax. ---rick p.s. The IRS just collects settlements that go into the Federal Infrastrucutre pool where it is reallocated for the common good...

1 0