June 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Agis, PSI, next C&W?
by Sean Donelan 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

On Mon, 04 June 2001, "Vivien M." wrote: > It's not likely to be a big technical deal, but the irony I find to be quite > prominent. First PSI forced others to make transit arrangements because of > their greed, and now CW is possibly making PSI do the same, for probably the > same motives. The funny thing about "peering policies" is they are no set policy. Networks can write whatever requirements or non-requirements they choose. Claims that one network or another doesn't meet arbitrary "peering requirements" should always be examined skeptically. Who set these requirements? If you put all the peering requirements into a barral and drew them out randomly, would provider P or C still met any arbitrary requirements from the barrel? Some regular NANOG attendees remember when AGIS implemented their new peering policy. Now, nobody cares about AGIS's peeering requirements. Some regular NANOG attendees remember when PSI implemented their new peering policy. Now, nobody cares about PSI's peering requirements. Cable & Wireless has implemented their new peering policy. I wonder how long it will be before nobody cares about C&W's peering requirements. After their acquisition of InternetMCI customers, C&W was extremely slow in upgrading their network and even slower in upgrading their peering connections. PSI concentrating in international expansion, so their US network is probably smaller than some other US-based providers. On their other hand, if you evaluated PSI as an international provider you might find they meet the "peering requirements" for international providers since other US-based providers are relatively weak elsewhere in the world. Should C&W purchase international transit from PSI? If C&W doesn't want to peer with PSI's international network, I guess C&W will have to decide if they want to buy transit or do without.

1 0

A moment of silence.
by Leo Bicknell 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

router>show int fddi5/0/0 Fddi5/0/0 is down, line protocol is down Description: FDDI to mae-east Jun 1 14:36:38.190: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Fddi5/0/0, changed state to down Jun 1 14:36:39.190: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Fddi5/0/0, changed state to down It appears that MFS finally went and did it, and the mae-east we all came to know and love has finally been turned off. Please bow your heads for a moment of silence. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

11 13

Re: PSI statement on C&W peering issue
by Richard A. Steenbergen 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:32:45PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote: > > Does the 10% number mean C&W's network reach has shrunk, or that a > growing number of networks are multihomed? I'm gonna go with "PSI made up a number that sounded good". -- 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: C&W Peering
by Patrick W. Gilmore 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

At 05:44 PM 6/4/2001 -0400, Travis Pugh wrote: >route-views.oregon-ix.net concurs: > >route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bgp regex ^3561_174_ > >route-views.oregon-ix.net> Yes, but if one or the other has backup peering, it would not look like that. It would look like _3561_.*_174_ or _174_.*_3561_ - prolly the former since AS3561 gives route-views a feed, but AS714 does not. Looking in route-views for those two patterns, I see only a few routes under 3561.*_174_, probably leakage. There are no routes of the form _174_.*_3561_. Since route-views does have a feed from AS3561, I would say it is official. Cable and Wireless cannot reach PSI.net. Congratulations ladies & gentlemen. The first intentional, prolonged, significant (for some values of "significant" :) outage on the Internet. And we were all here to see it.... Wow, in the same week MAE-East dies. Sad time for the 'Net. :(( >-travis -- TTFN, patrick

5 5

Traceloop between PSI and C&W
by Steve Schaefer 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

Here's a quick link so that anyone can check to see actual traces between C&W and PSI. When (if?) they find each other again, you'll be able to see the actual routes (in both directions): http://www.traceloop.com/cgi-bin/traceloop.cgi?sid=fnryumci&dn=AS3561.a1 This is a special link -- you'll have to log out and log in if you want to use the normal service. Every Traceloop is being done by the same two test points, so there could be some blocking when this post first hits... Hope that helps. Steve Schaefer Dashbit - The Leader In Internet Topology www.dashbit.com www.traceloop.com

1 0

Re: C&W Peering
by Kevin Loch 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

This is sure to create a number of "big pipe orphans". I wonder if this will create a surge in multihoming attempts? How could you discourage that now? Unlike the recent DSL disasters, you can't just say "buy a T1 if you want reliable service". Even if you are not a PSI customer, it would be foolish not to multihome now. Did C&W consider the route table effects of this new routing policy? KL "Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote: > > At 05:44 PM 6/4/2001 -0400, Travis Pugh wrote: > > >route-views.oregon-ix.net concurs: > > > >route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bgp regex ^3561_174_ > > > >route-views.oregon-ix.net> > > Yes, but if one or the other has backup peering, it would not look like > that. It would look like _3561_.*_174_ or _174_.*_3561_ - prolly the > former since AS3561 gives route-views a feed, but AS714 does not. > > Looking in route-views for those two patterns, I see only a few routes > under 3561.*_174_, probably leakage. There are no routes of the form > _174_.*_3561_. > > Since route-views does have a feed from AS3561, I would say it is > official. Cable and Wireless cannot reach PSI.net. > > Congratulations ladies & gentlemen. The first intentional, prolonged, > significant (for some values of "significant" :) outage on the > Internet. And we were all here to see it.... > > Wow, in the same week MAE-East dies. Sad time for the 'Net. :(( > > >-travis > > -- > TTFN, > patrick

3 2

Re: C&W Peering
by Sean Donelan 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

On Mon, 04 June 2001, Simon Lockhart wrote: > Well, I assumed PSI and/or C&W would have had some backup transit, if they > were going to play that game, but... > By defintion a "tier 1" provider does not have any transit, backup or otherwise. If tier 1 providers terminate peering, there are no alternate routes between them. However, customers who are multihomed may be able to reach both of them. Likewise customers of other peers can reach both of them. But customers exclusively connected to one or the other battling peer can't reach customers exclusively attached to the other. Its been a while since we've had a real "tier 1" peering battle. Last time ANS lasted a couple of weeks before they caved in and joined the CIX after the CIX filtered out non-member routes.

1 0

Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
by Richard A. Steenbergen 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:48:11PM -0400, Jim Mercer wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 01:34:08PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > most of my customers are ethernet connected, and some customers share > > > an interface. i got into this before it was cheap to do 802.11q > > > switching, so my billing system needed to deal with multiple customers > > > on a single ethernet. > > > > Thats irrelevant; look at the counters on the customers switch-port. > > Doesn't matter what VLAN (or none) they are on. > > ah, well, again, i was using multiport bsd implementations, not > switches. > > as it stands, i'm fairly content using the cache flow from the > cisco's. > > one day, i might actually install a full 802.11q compliant switching > framework, but, well, not today. Come on, even D-Link is making switches with 802.1q... http://www.dlink.com/products/switches/des6000/ Go search your couch for loose change. -- 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

Next NANOG meeting
by Susan Harris 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

Hi everyone - I'm pleased to announce that the next NANOG meeting will be held October 21-23 in Oakland CA, and will be hosted by Cisco. You'll find more information in the NANOG23 Call for Presentations: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/call23.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/call23.pdf Registration begins in early August. See you this fall! --Susan Harris

1 0

95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
by Richard A. Steenbergen 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 05:19:16PM -0500, Albert Meyer wrote: > > I almost got caught by this one a few months ago. I was fixing to sign > a contract with Exodus for a 100bT circuit when I noticed some > funny-looking language and asked some probing questions, and then > realized that I had to double their quoted rates before comparing them > to everyone else. This moved them from the front of the pack back to > UU-land. > > UUNet is another story. They not only charge significantly more than > everyone else, but they calculate 95th percentile on the higher of > incoming and outgoing rather than the average. When I asked my > salesperson why she couldn't give me a competitive rate, she said > "Because we're UUNet." She seemed pretty taken aback when I explained Exodus is the worst on billing bit for bit. The way I read the Exodus 95th percentile document (though I still havn't gotten it confirmed by a person who actually knew what they were talking about), they bill for the MAXIMIUM 95th percentile, on both inbound AND outbound. UUNet bills for the MAXIMIUM 95th percentile on inbound OR outbound, whichever is higher, as does AboveNet, and probably the majority of networks trying to be like UUNet. But a significant portion of other networks will bill for the AVERAGE under the 95th percentile. I think the MAXIMIUM is unclear to a lot of people, especially the sales people if you try to get a straight answer out of them. When most people refer to the UUNet "95th percentile", this is what they mean. You take traffic samples, line them up in order, lop off the top 5%, and whatever the number is for the sample right under that is what gets multiplied by the cost per mbit. This means that if you push 1Mbps for 25 days and 10Mbps for 5 days you will pay 10 * $$$ per mbit. Average means you will pay 2.5 * $$$ per mbit (((1 * 25) + (10 * 5)) / 30), obviously a major difference. A LOT of sales people are misleading or utterly clueless about this, and a lot of providers actually WILL bill you for the AVERAGE under the 95th percentile (though if you think about it the 95th percentile makes little sense if you average it, it was designed to extract the maximium amount of money while not making people utterly afraid to burst higher). Moral of the story, check for those words "AND" vs "OR", and "MAXIMIUM" vs "AVERAGE", ask for their boss and check it again, and then get it in writing. :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)

18 55