[...] Since Digex is at too few NAPs to peer with AGIS, and they are not at the CIX, we see no routes from them.
CIX is taking new connections, either T1, PB-SMDS, or DEC-PAIX (FDDI or Ether).
Just a side thought about CIX's role in the Internet... With peering requirements becoming too strict for new players, I see two alternatives for getting good peering connectivity: - RA servers - semi-reliable registration-based database for routing updates - lacks media sensing - CIX - on-the-fly trust-the-providers routing updates - media sensing through BGP peering sessions - router could overload CIX started up long ago to "create a level playing field" (commercial providers vs. ANS/NSFNET/AUP). When everyone willingly peered with everyone else at MAE's and NAPs, CIX was becoming a moot point (why use CIX over a slow link when I can go direct via DS3/Router/Giga/- Router/DS3?). Now that the playing field isn't level anymore (big fish refusing to peer with little fish), perhaps CIX has a new use - simple peering at major exchange points. Instead of having people all try to peer with each other, a lengthy process and complex to manage), why not have CIX put a router in any exchange point and say, "Here CIX members, peer with this router and you'll get routing to every other CIX member at the exchange point." The "big ISPs" will still peer with each other directly, even privately, but they have enough traffic in between them to make it worthwhile. New or small ISPs would be the primary benefactors. So you ask, "What about RA?" I have nothing against it. For new providers, it's an excellent solution that gets them off the ground peering. I suspect though that some providers just don't like the fact that the routing is decoupled from the L2 switching making exchange point connectivity outages hard to detect/correct quickly. Some would say that CIX gets saturated. Yes, CIX-West was at one time fatally saturated on incoming bit pipes (not necessarily CIX's fault), but saturation can be reduced or eliminated by: - having multiple CIX routers - one set at every major exchange point (no, there's no bacbone in between). - rate-limiting peers to a maximum of XX Mbps (ATM, yes; possible on GigaSwitchs or FDDIs?). - detecting then encouraging peers with more than X Mbps of traffic (on average) to offload traffic to direct peering or other exchange points. - Using multiple iBGP routers at an exchange point. Then again, it doesn't have to be CIX; it just seems natural since they've been running CIX-West for oh-so-long. A bunch of smart BGP people can go out, get some money, buy the equipment, install it, and have ISPs pay them for the service. Would such a peering entity compete with ISPs? I don't think so. Routing at a peering point isn't their business - transiting customers to "the Internet" reliably and quickly is. ISPs would be the customers of the "enhanced peering service". I don't think this is really a new idea, nor really my concern, but I see two of my service providers struggling to get new peering and think, "There's got to be a better way." ... just something to think about. -- Eric Ziegast Looking in from the edge
- CIX - on-the-fly trust-the-providers routing updates - media sensing through BGP peering sessions - router could overload
simple peering at major exchange points. Instead of having people all try to peer with each other, a lengthy process and complex to manage), why not have CIX put a router in any exchange point and say, "Here CIX members, peer with this router and you'll get routing to every other
No. That wouldn't work w/ CIX. It'd have to be some other entity. Current CIX members wouldn't go for it.
CIX member at the exchange point." The "big ISPs" will still peer with each other directly, even privately, but they have enough traffic in between them to make it worthwhile. New or small ISPs would be the primary benefactors.
I've been thinking about this. Something like an MLPA, but without even the needed formality. Basically, a 2501 or 2 or 3 at exchange points acting as route reflectors might be handy for smaller ISPs who wanted to say "I'll peer with anyone here to get better connectivity to them". Since noone with > a few k routes is going to participate, 2501s will have more than enough memory, and a 2501 can handle 20-30 such peers without dying when reloaded. And all sessions would be screened against announcing 1673, 3561, 701, 174, 4200, 1239, 1, etc... (in no particular order) to the boxes, thus guaranteeing that screwups would be minimized. Eventually, perhaps an automated web site to allow people to build in the access filters that the boxes would apply to them - either on an as-path or per-route basis. Yes, this can be done simply (pretty simply, that is) through the RA, but the idea would be to sign up and say "Hey, I don't have time to deal with the peering requests, just peer with the MLPA-router and I'll hear you and you'll hear me". Someone would have to moderate/arbitrate it, but since noone would be getting transit through this thing, if someone was dropped from it for a day or two while they got their shit in gear nothing critical would be affected. Anyway, it's possible that the ISP/C might sponsor something - though the thought might be that you'd have to be an ISP/C member to participate but that noone would be required to peer or participate just because they were an ISP/C member. It's possible that we could cooperate with some other providers (all of whom have 24x7 NOCs) to pass of NOC-stewardship of the routers...
Some would say that CIX gets saturated. Yes, CIX-West was at one time fatally saturated on incoming bit pipes (not necessarily CIX's fault), but saturation can be reduced or eliminated by: - having multiple CIX routers - one set at every major exchange point (no, there's no bacbone in between). - rate-limiting peers to a maximum of XX Mbps (ATM, yes; possible on GigaSwitchs or FDDIs?). - detecting then encouraging peers with more than X Mbps of traffic (on average) to offload traffic to direct peering or other exchange points. - Using multiple iBGP routers at an exchange point.
I think route reflecting is a much better idea than trying to build something which would actually pass data through it.
Then again, it doesn't have to be CIX; it just seems natural since they've been running CIX-West for oh-so-long. A bunch of smart BGP people can go out, get some money, buy the equipment, install it, and have ISPs pay them for the service.
I don't think this is really a new idea, nor really my concern, but I see two of my service providers struggling to get new peering and think, "There's got to be a better way."
... just something to think about.
It's a thought that I have had. I think this is doable and helpful. It seems that the larger exchanges are becoming multiple things to multiple people. Certainly ISPs in the DC and Bay areas are connecting to larger exchanges hoping to get access to the larger providers - but also (and more realistically) to get better connectivity between themselves. The key idea here (since all of this can be done through the RA anyway) is just to save the time of 30 providers trying to coordinate with 30 other providers re: "Do you want to peer with me?". Avi
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
Yes, this can be done simply (pretty simply, that is) through the RA, but the idea would be to sign up and say "Hey, I don't have time to deal with the peering requests, just peer with the MLPA-router and I'll hear you and you'll hear me".
I pinged the RA folks about this a few months back, and they said they tried setting up "open peering" macros at one time without much interest from ISPs. Maybe it's time to try again. The link-level cognizance of the RA is also a concern, but I understand this is (still) being addressed. I for one would like to see the work of the RA continue and grow, since none of the NAPs themselves seem overly interested in providing much in the way of "value-added" functionality beyond their link-level switching (which is not a criticism, just a statement of fact). If the RA can obtain funding contributions via the NAPs for this open-peering macro service, then I think this would be a good-thing. If I could scoop up routes of many of the smaller ISPs through the RA at any NAP I would - as would many with open peering policies I suspect. I wonder what the ratio of open/restricted peering policies is at the NAPs/MAEs? If enough ISPs mail me details of which NAPs they're at and whether they would peer with everyone or not, I'll summarise and present this info. Mark
participants (3)
-
Avi Freedman -
Eric Ziegast -
Mark Turner