August 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

|> From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] |> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:52 PM |> |> Patrick Greenwell wrote: |> |> > Please explain why the "basement dual-homer" should not |> have the same |> > right to diversity as the "major services." |> > |> > And please, be specific. |> |> The quesetion is bogus, there is no such thing as a |> right to have a route |> in my router without paying me for it. If I am paying for those routes then I have a contractual right. If you don't want my redundant feed, and the route advertisements that go with it, then don't take my money. No one is advocating multi-homing without payment. Where did you read that? |> If I choose to extend |> that privilege |> to people who meet certain minimum requirements because I believe the |> benefits will outweight the costs, then that's *my* right. Please detail the exact costs of a, BGP inserted, routing table entry. Is it, maybe, 50 cents? Now, how much are you getting for a DS1 link? What does that cost, exactly, considering that an outfit capable of setting up multi-homing are probably the folks that your techs never hear from, but once a year? That appears to be a margin that is far above keystone. How greedy do you want to be? |> All others can |> pay me to do it if they want me to. Your rights end at my network. BTW, randy's position is rather strange, coming from someone that used to support the FidoNet community, by being the FTSC chair.

7 6

RE: multi-homing fixes
by smd＠clock.org 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

Patrick Greenwell asks: | The question is would you honor microallocations from a RIR if they | said "we have designated this particular space for microallocations, would | you please accept routes for these netblocks with these prefixes?" This is a business opportunity for the ex-MERIT folks who maintained the PRDB in the days of the weekly updates. Resurrecting and "improving" as-out:-style, less-dynamic approaches to partition recovery will earn you zillions! Sean.

1 0

Roeland Meyer owes me money! (was re: multi-homing fixes)
by smd＠clock.org 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

Roeland Meyer <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> writes: | Please detail the exact costs of a, BGP inserted, routing table entry. Is | it, maybe, 50 cents? Deal. Kindly send 50 cents (in U.S. currency) for each prefix you announce to the world, since I am carrying full routing on one of my own personal routers. You can get my postal address by email. My employers no doubt would like their 50 cents too, however I expect there is a possibility that they will interpret your sensible offer to be on a PER-ROUTER basis. Please let me know where they should send the invoice for the few hundred dollars per prefix. Don't forget that when you change your NLRI at or near the source you will be occupying a different slot, so it's only fair that you should send 50 cents again to me (and to my employers * number_of_routers) when that happens. Of course, we could just burn the existing NLRI into something approaching ROM, which will save you some recurring fees, during those pesky flapping periods of advertisments and withdrawals, but perhaps the dynamicism is worth it to you. Let me know. It's pretty easy to implement this in the vein of http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-210.html After the useful historical demonstration of a "if you flap three times, go home for the rest of the day" policy, damping more aggressively along the lines of "if you flap three times, you're out of my tables forever" is quite feasible. And, if you're a net.genius with lots of luck, maybe this is exactly the sort of 50-cent-times-n savings that appeals to you! Sean. - -- Sean Doran <smd(a)ab.use.net> Evil Greedy Bastard

1 0

OC3 Transit Service in New York
by Elijah Kagan 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

Please excuse me if this is not a right list to ask such questions, but... I am a network manager for NetVision, an Israeli ISP. We have a couple of locations in US which primary purpose is getting transit services from US ISPs. One of these ISPs is Teleglobe and we have an OC3 transit connection at 60 Hudson, New York. For the past couple of months we are growing discontent with service levels received from them and are looking for an alternative provider to work with. ISPs considered so far are C&W, Global Grossing and Qwest. Could someone comment on their network services, customer service, technical skills of their staff, etc. Any other real life experience with the above ISPs is welcome. Especially I am interested in information about Global Grossing because of their very attractive proposal. (I did not mention UUNet because we are already connected to them). Recommendations for other ISPs are welcome. Also, I would like to know about other people's experience with Teleglobe. Thanks, Elijah P.S. I know that NANOG stands for North American, but can someone recommend an ISP in Brussels, Belgium (except UUNet) to buy a transit OC3 from? Thanks again.

4 4

Measuring PoP to PoP latency--tools to use?
by Murphy, Brennan 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

What tools exist that will periodically log into multiple routers and run ping tests to various destinations and then record the results in graphical form? I am trying to avoid writing an expect script to do this. I want to set up something that records semi-live data to produce a web page similar to: http://ipnetwork.bgtmo.ip.att.net/current_network_performance.shtml The map portion of the graphic may be too fancy. A simple grid similar to this might be better: http://www.internethealthreport.com Any suggestions as to what tools to investigate would be greatly appreciated. I browsed the nanog archives as well as google...no hits so far. Thanks, BM

7 6

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

|> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] |> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 7:51 PM |> |> the point of 2xDS3 was specifically to get major services, |> and not to get |> every basement dual-homer. do the latter and you have the |> same grazing |> of the commons as we have today. Considering the cost of a DS1, in California anyways, I might disagree with you. DS1 is steep enough, DS3's are much too steep and sounds much too anti-competitive. Randy, you also know the rates the rest of the planet pays for E1's and E2's, if they can even get anything that fast. If you want a speed-bump then don't build a speed-farging-mountain. What you are saying is that businesses that can't afford the monthlies of a pair of DS3's aren't allowed to be in business? Is that an official position? How would you like it if you were in that position? Can I quote you on that?

4 4

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

3 2

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

|> From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com] |> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 12:19 AM |> |> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 11:49:43PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote: |> > Please define who needs to be multi-homed and who doesn't. |> |> Please reread my original post. |> |> This is NOT about multi-homing. This is about microallocations. Erhem ... can I refer you to the subject line?

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

|> From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com] |> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:38 PM |> |> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:57:29PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote: |> > BTW, randy's position is rather strange, coming from |> someone that used to |> > support the FidoNet community, by being the FTSC chair. |> |> Correct me if I'm wrong, since it's been a few years, |> but FidoNet address aggregate quite nicely, don't they? Yes, but the packets were rather large (messages) and they did per-hop routing. Some nets practiced heavy redundant links (Colorado Springs), depending on the dup-killer to strain out the cruft. Least-cost routing takes on a whole new meaning there.

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

|> From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] |> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:06 PM |> |> > If I am paying for those routes then I have a contractual |> > right. If you |> > don't want my redundant feed, and the route advertisements |> > that go with it, then don't take my money. |> |> > Please detail the exact costs of a, BGP inserted, routing |> > table entry. Is |> > it, maybe, 50 cents? Now, how much are you getting for a DS1 |> > link? What does that cost, exactly, considering that an |> > outfit capable of setting up |> > multi-homing are probably the folks that your techs never |> > hear from, but once a year? That appears to be a margin that |> > is far above keystone. How greedy do you want to be? |> |> The point you're missing is that the important issue is |> not whether or not |> your ISP will carry and advertise your routes, since you are |> paying them to. So far, we're on-track... |> The important point is whether or not anyone else will carry |> your route. |> There's no reason for a RIR to make a microallocation just so you can |> advertise it to your ISP. If the advertisement was purely between |> contracually bound parties, the block could be part of a |> provider's larger |> block and there would be no difference. The only reason for a |> microallocation is to get a party with whom you do not have |> a contract to |> accept a route that they would not otherwise accept. This is a lot like derivatives. Only in this case, the upstream cost is part of your COGs. You pay your upstream to take those table entries, as part of your contract with them. As is customary, the cost is forwarded down to the actual user(yes Virginia, it does flow down-hill), in the form of fees for that contracted service. You *are* selling services above your COGs, aren't you? You do factor your upstream costs into your COGs, don't you? |> Why else would a multihomer want a microallocation? Why |> not just use a chunk of a provider's IP space? The only answers are: |> |> 1) We don't want to be held hostage by a provider. (No |> good, not a technical justification.) *>boogle<* For the life of me, I don't understand why not. Part of the current collapse involves serious business instabilities. I maintain that those instabilities seriously weaken any chance of recovery. If a business can't get a trustworthy connection, or fabricate one by multi-homing existing connections then they will stop relying on those connections at all. ALL of us lose when general business decides that the Internet isn't ready for prime-time. The collapse will continue for a long time. I lose customers, you lose customers, we ALL lose customers. I was just informed that one of excite@home's creditors just demanded $50M of their money back by Friday. I don't like walking through the Valley of eDeath, do you? I certainly don't like living there. |> 2) We want others to accept our smaller routes. (Why |> not do it by contract?) I *am* talking about doing it by contract and this isn't a technical argument either.

1 0