June 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

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 02 Jun '01

02 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 02 Jun '01

02 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

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
by smd＠clock.org 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

TE is really a buzzword used by vendor marketroids to extract cash from operators who could just as easily spend it on the competition's gear. IOW, the traffic that is engineered is the flow of money. Why did Cisco invent Tag Switching? Hint: where is Ipsilon these days? Hint II: how many big-iron ATM vendors are at the core of the Internet today? Cynically, Sean.

3 2

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 1 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 xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 01Jun01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 250501 101869 260501 101666 270501 101615 280501 101654 290501 101680 300501 101711 310501 102185 010601 102687 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 10917 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 6470 (3678 cidr, 2792 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 1111 announced by AS705 Largest number of classful routes: 1406 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 01Jun01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1385 1032 353 25.5% TELSTRA-AS AS13999 103 11 92 89.3% autonomous system number assigned AS1 591 536 55 9.3% GTE Internetworking AS13544 71 18 53 74.6% autonomous system number assigned AS10692 67 14 53 79.1% DLS Internet Services AS10692 AS11686 143 93 50 35.0% Education Networks of America AS11774 74 28 46 62.2% AS 11774 Object AS1239 444 400 44 9.9% SprintLink Backbone AS1267 68 26 42 61.8% Infostrada S.p.A. AS1237 96 54 42 43.8% KISTI AS12235 48 7 41 85.4% Cove Software Systems Inc AS12302 66 28 38 57.6% MobiFon S.A. AS14 51 15 36 70.6% Columbia University in the City o AS10620 52 18 34 65.4% autonomous system number assigned AS13345 66 33 33 50.0% autonomous system number assigned AS11507 86 53 33 38.4% TouchAmerica Montana AS11311 42 9 33 78.6% autonomous system number assigned AS12064 34 2 32 94.1% autonomous system number assigned AS11859 45 13 32 71.1% autonomous system number assigned AS12497 32 1 31 96.9% SA*Net Network - AS AS12067 32 1 31 96.9% autonomous system number assigned AS12062 34 3 31 91.2% autonomous system number assigned AS11606 43 12 31 72.1% autonomous system number assigned AS14103 36 7 29 80.6% ACD.net Network AS11418 45 16 29 64.4% autonomous system number assigned AS11371 76 48 28 36.8% Rhythms AS10722 58 31 27 46.6% Aluminum Co. of America AS13208 32 6 26 81.2% Newtel Solutions Autonomous Syste AS12709 32 6 26 81.2% Melita Cable Autonomous System AS12564 31 5 26 83.9% Bulgarian Government Autonomous S 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

1 0