October 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Cogent peering issues with Sprint
by CARL.P.HIRSCH＠sargentlundy.com 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

Cogent is experiencing two problems right now. Their automated message reports that they have a backbone problem causing latency, but they also seem to be experiencing peering problems with Sprint. Output over Cogent: sarglund-cogent>traceroute www.duke-energy.com Translating "www.duke-energy.com"...domain server (66.28.0.45) [OK] Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.duke-energy.com (192.234.122.137) 1 g0-2.na01.b000629-0.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.112.0.193) [AS 174] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 g1-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.6.73) [AS 174] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 t4-1.mpd01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.1.98) [AS 174] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 4 v3488.mpd01.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.26) [AS 174] 0 msec 0 msec 0msec 5 g6-0-0-3492.core01.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.241) [AS 174] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 6 sprint.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.46) [AS 174] 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 7 sl-bb20-chi-4-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.218) [AS 174] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 8 sl-bb21-chi-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.26.2) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 9 sl-bb25-chi-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.26.90) [AS 174] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * sarglund-cogent> vs. Output over Verizon: sarglund-gw>traceroute www.duke-energy.com Translating "www.duke-energy.com"...domain server (198.6.1.2) [OK] Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.duke-energy.com (192.234.122.137) 1 500.Serial4-10.GW1.CHI2.ALTER.NET (157.130.165.213) [AS 701] 8 msec 0 msec 4msec 2 0.so-0-0-0.XT1.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.64.130) [AS 701] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 0.so-7-0-0.XL1.CHI13.ALTER.NET (152.63.64.206) [AS 701] 4 msec 16 msec 4 msec 4 0.so-6-0-0.BR2.CHI13.ALTER.NET (152.63.73.25) [AS 701] 4 msec 0 msec 44 msec 5 sl-st21-chi-3-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.141) [AS 701] 32 msec 12 msec 12 msec 6 sl-crs2-chi-0-1-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.154) [AS 701] 8 msec 16 msec 20 msec 7 sl-bb25-chi-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.26.113) [AS 701] 12 msec 28 msec 12 msec 8 sl-bb26-rly-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.88) [AS 701] 116 msec 216 msec * 9 sl-bb21-dc-12-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.212) [AS 701] 24 msec 32 msec 36 msec 10 sl-gw21-dc-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.15.9) [AS 701] 32 msec 28 msec 24 msec 11 sl-dukenergy-57200-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.23.170) [AS 701] 40 msec 36 msec 40 msec sarglund-gw> enjoy, -carl

6 9

How Not to Multihome
by Keegan.Holley＠sungard.com 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot find any information that states as law. Does anyone know of a document or RFC that states this? Thanks, Keegan

16 35

Any Comcast Mail/Sysadmins?
by Raymond L. Corbin 09 Oct '07

09 Oct '07

Hey, I'm having a few deliverability issues to a few comcast mail gateways. Is there any comcast mail/sys admins here or anyone who can get me in contact with them off list? It would be greately appreciated. Thanks for the help! -Ray

2 1

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)
by Scott Weeks 09 Oct '07

09 Oct '07

--- drc(a)virtualized.org wrote: On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > However, if it's less than a /24 it won't get very far as most > upstreams block prefixes longer than a /24. I'm curious: a couple of people have indicated they do not believe this to be the case. Anybody have any hard data on what filters are actually in use today? -------------------------------------------- I found two current policies. Other companies made it too hard to find... Sprint: # Customers may announce routes as small as /26 for ARIN IP address blocks obtained through Sprint. Customers may announce routes as small as /28 for RIPE and APNIC address blocks obtained through Sprint. # Peer block announcements and customer announcements for blocks obtained from other providers are limited to a /24 or smaller mask (/23, /22 etc.). AT&T: * not accept Customer route announcements smaller than a /24 network scott

2 1

Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
by Hex Star 08 Oct '07

08 Oct '07

Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP?

18 20

two questions - SWAG answers entertained
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 08 Oct '07

08 Oct '07

one: AS hop count for average e2e packet flow, eg. from origin to destination, how many ASN's will a packet traverse? two: number/location of IX that monitor/forbid transit across exchange fabric? --bill (doing grunt work for a study on Landauer Entropy)

6 9

Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
by Vassili Tchersky 08 Oct '07

08 Oct '07

2007/10/4, David E. Smith <dave(a)mvn.net>: > I imagine the cost of backhauling traffic a few thousand miles in > underseas cables would add to the cost of running an ISP in, say, > Australia, especially since many sites the end-users will want to see > are still hosted in the US. In Europe, the only ISPs where i've seen bandwith quotas was some cables operators, while in Canada bandwith quotas seem to be still in place at many ISPs. I'm not an expert at all, but it seems that in Europe, even far from the US-hosted websites, the bandwith cost may be cheaper. -- Vassili Tchersky

6 7

Laws governing FTTx ?
by Patrick Giagnocavo 08 Oct '07

08 Oct '07

I would be interested in hearing from those providing fiber to homes or businesses, and the laws surrounding that. Specifically, if the builder of a new home or homes allows fiber installation (that is, fiber installed before the home is built and which is wired into the basement wall beside the telco's network panel) by a non-ILEC/non-CLEC, is a permit other than the usual construction permit necessary? (Certainly an easement will need to be drawn up for the fiber as it crosses property lines; but I am more worried about the ILEC complaining or being able to erect legal barriers). Cordially Patrick Giagnocavo patrick(a)zill.net

3 2

Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
by Joe Greco 07 Oct '07

07 Oct '07

> > Now, ISP economics pretty much require that some amount of overcommit > > will happen. However, if you have a 12GB quota, that works out to > > around 36 kilobits/sec average. Assuming the ISP is selling 10Mbps > > connections (and bearing in mind that ADSL2 can certainly go more than > > that), what that's saying is that the average user can use 1/278th of > > their connection. I would imagine that the overcommit rate is much > > higher than that. > > I don't think that things should be measured like this. Throughput != > bandwidth. No, but it gives some rational way to look at it, as long as we all realize what we're talking about. The other ways I've seen it discussed mostly involve a lot of handwaving. > Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical > speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at > 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they > exceed it. And that seems like a bit of the handwaving. Where is it costing the ISP more when the user exceeds 12G/month? Think very carefully about that before you answer. If it was arranged that every customer of the ISP in question were to go to 100% utilization downloading 12G on the first of the month at 12:01AM, it seems clear to me that you could really screw up 95th. > > Note: I'm assuming the quota is monthly, as it seems to be for most > > AU ISP's I've looked at, for example: > > Yes most are monthly based on GB. > > > capacity is being stifled by ISP's that are stuck back > > in speeds (and policies) appropriate for the year 2000. > > Imagine a case (even in the largest of ISP's), where there are no > quotas, and everyone has a 10Mbps connection. I'm imagining it. I've already stated that it's a problem. > I don't think there is an ISP in existence that has the infrastructure > capacity to carry all of their clients using all of the connections > simultaneously at full speed for long extended periods. I'll go so far as to say that there's no real ISP in existence that could support it for any period. > As bandwidth and throughput increases, so does the strain on the > networks that are upstream from the client. Obviously. > Unless someone pays for the continuously growing data transfers, then > your 6Mbps ADSL connection is fantastic, until you transit across the > ISP's network who can't afford to upgrade the infrastructure because > clients think they are being ripped off for paying 'extra'. > > Now, at your $34/month for your resi ADSL connection, the clients call > the ISP and complain about slow speeds, but when you advise that they > have downloaded 90GB of movies last month and they must pay for it, they > wont. Everyone wants it cheaper and cheaper, but yet expect things to > work 100% of the time, and at 100% at maximum advertised capacity. My > favorites are the clients who call the helpdesk and state "I'm trying to > run a business here" (on their residential ADSL connection). 90GB/mo is still a relatively small amount of bandwidth. That works out to around a quarter of a megabit on average. This is nowhere near the "100%" situation you're discussing. And it's also a lot higher than the 12GB/mo quota under discussion. > > What are we missing out on because ISP's are more interested in keeping > > bandwidth use low? > > I don't think anyone wants to keep bandwidth use low, it's just in order > to continue to allow bandwidth consumption to grow, someone needs to pay > for it. How about the ISP? Surely their costs are going down. Certainly I know that our wholesale bandwidth costs have dropped orders of magnitude in the last ~decade or so. Equipment does occasionally need to be replaced. I've got a nice pair of Ascend GRF400's out in the garage that cost $65K- $80K each when originally purchased. They'd be lucky to pull any number of dollars these days. It's a planned expense. As for physical plant, I'd imagine that a large amount of that is also a planned expense, and is being paid down (or already paid off), so arguing that this is somewhere that a lot of extra expense will exist is probably silly too. > > What fantastic new technologies haven't been developed > > because they were deemed impractical given the state of the Internet? > > Backbone connections worth $34/month, and infrastructure gear that > upgrades itself at no cost. Hint: that money you're collecting from your customers isn't all profit. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

8 14

Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
by Joe Greco 07 Oct '07

07 Oct '07

> >> No, its that they've run the numbers and found the users above 12G/month > >> are using a significant fraction of their network capacity for whatever > >> values of signficant and fraction you define. > > > > Of course, that's obvious. The point here is that if your business is so > > fragile that you can only deliver each broadband customer a dialup modem's > > worth of bandwidth, something's wrong with your business. > > If your business model states that you will not charge clients for > something when they have no problem paying for it in order to make the > service better for them, then there is something wrong with your > business model. > > Note that no one said "can't" deliver the service. You want unlimited > bandwidth, either pay for it, or go to one of the bigger guys who will > give it to you. Good luck when you want any sort of technical support... Actually, I wasn't talking about "unlimited" bandwidth. I was talking more about quotas that are so incredibly small as to be stifling to new offerings. There are USB pen drives that hold more than 12GB. I'm really expecting InterneTiVo to become a big thing at some point in the not-too-distant future, probably nearly as soon as there's some broadband deployment capable of dealing with the implications, and an Akamai-like system to deliver the content on-net where possible. However, it is equally possible that there'll be some newfangled killer app that comes along. At some point, this will present a problem. All the self-justification in the world will not matter when the customers want to be able to do something that uses up a little more bandwidth. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

2 2