September 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

This report has been generated at Fri Sep 23 21:12:15 2011 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 16-09-11 374860 220342 17-09-11 375515 220511 18-09-11 375310 220632 19-09-11 375594 220892 20-09-11 375707 221389 21-09-11 376330 220810 22-09-11 376744 221221 23-09-11 377111 221339 AS Summary 38986 Number of ASes in routing system 16483 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 3560 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS6389 : BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc. 108362720 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 23Sep11 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 377486 221314 156172 41.4% All ASes AS6389 3560 229 3331 93.6% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc. AS18566 1913 379 1534 80.2% COVAD - Covad Communications Co. AS4766 2503 973 1530 61.1% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom AS22773 1458 109 1349 92.5% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc. AS4755 1552 225 1327 85.5% TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP AS4323 1625 394 1231 75.8% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc. AS1785 1829 781 1048 57.3% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec Communications, Inc. AS28573 1368 344 1024 74.9% NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A. AS19262 1395 400 995 71.3% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online LLC AS7552 1398 406 992 71.0% VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel Corporation AS7303 1162 311 851 73.2% Telecom Argentina S.A. AS10620 1678 839 839 50.0% Telmex Colombia S.A. AS18101 939 146 793 84.5% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN Reliance Communications Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI AS24560 1182 405 777 65.7% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services AS8151 1420 647 773 54.4% Uninet S.A. de C.V. AS30036 1420 682 738 52.0% MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom Communications Corp AS4808 1072 335 737 68.8% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network AS7545 1599 875 724 45.3% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS3356 1106 451 655 59.2% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications AS14420 734 92 642 87.5% CORPORACION NACIONAL DE TELECOMUNICACIONES - CNT EP AS17676 679 70 609 89.7% GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp. AS20115 1597 989 608 38.1% CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications AS22561 972 364 608 62.6% DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital Teleport Inc. AS3549 1060 453 607 57.3% GBLX Global Crossing Ltd. AS17974 2003 1411 592 29.6% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia AS4804 660 87 573 86.8% MPX-AS Microplex PTY LTD AS22047 580 28 552 95.2% VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A. AS7011 1181 656 525 44.5% FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS - Frontier Communications of America, Inc. AS4780 761 242 519 68.2% SEEDNET Digital United Inc. AS8402 966 447 519 53.7% CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom" Total 41372 13770 27602 66.7% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 5.0.0.0/16 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 5.1.0.0/21 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 5.1.24.0/24 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 10.86.64.32/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.86.64.36/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.86.65.32/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.86.65.36/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.255.255.0/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.255.255.4/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.255.255.8/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 41.222.79.0/24 AS36938 AMSCOTELECOMS Amsco Telecommunications Nigeria Limited 41.223.92.0/22 AS36936 CELTEL-GABON Celtel Gabon Internet Service 46.18.104.0/21 AS19735 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV 62.61.221.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV 64.21.192.0/20 AS11610 INETNEBR-1 - Internet Nebraska Corporation 64.21.212.0/22 AS11610 INETNEBR-1 - Internet Nebraska Corporation 64.21.216.0/21 AS11610 INETNEBR-1 - Internet Nebraska Corporation 66.171.32.0/20 AS705 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 66.180.239.0/24 AS35888 VIGNETTE - VIGNETTE CORPORATION 66.206.47.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 66.207.32.0/20 AS23011 66.245.176.0/20 AS19318 NJIIX-AS-1 - NEW JERSEY INTERNATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE LLC 69.6.80.0/24 AS13442 71.19.134.0/23 AS3313 INET-AS BT Italia S.p.A. 80.88.10.0/24 AS33774 DJAWEB 91.231.144.0/24 AS34119 WILDCARD-AS Wildcard UK Ltd 110.34.44.0/22 AS12653 COMTONET KB Impuls Hellas 116.206.72.0/24 AS6461 MFNX MFN - Metromedia Fiber Network 116.206.85.0/24 AS6461 MFNX MFN - Metromedia Fiber Network 116.206.103.0/24 AS6461 MFNX MFN - Metromedia Fiber Network 117.120.56.0/21 AS4755 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP 121.46.0.0/16 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street 142.54.0.0/19 AS23498 CDSI - Cogeco Data Services Inc. 172.102.0.0/22 AS4812 CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group) 185.0.0.0/16 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 185.1.0.0/21 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 185.24.0.0/24 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 190.102.32.0/20 AS30058 FDCSERVERS - FDCservers.net 190.104.32.0/21 AS27882 Telefónica Celular de Bolivia S.A. 193.111.87.0/24 AS24812 195.54.52.0/23 AS19713 ASBAGNJUK PC Bagnjuk Maksim Valerjevich 195.54.52.0/24 AS19713 ASBAGNJUK PC Bagnjuk Maksim Valerjevich 195.54.53.0/24 AS19713 ASBAGNJUK PC Bagnjuk Maksim Valerjevich 200.6.93.0/24 AS6400 Compañía Dominicana de Teléfonos, C. por A. - CODETEL 200.6.94.0/24 AS6400 Compañía Dominicana de Teléfonos, C. por A. - CODETEL 200.6.95.0/24 AS6400 Compañía Dominicana de Teléfonos, C. por A. - CODETEL 200.23.84.0/24 AS8151 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 200.24.73.0/24 AS19429 ETB - Colombia 200.24.76.0/24 AS7195 Telecorp Colombia S.A. 200.24.78.0/26 AS3549 GBLX Global Crossing Ltd. 200.24.78.64/26 AS3549 GBLX Global Crossing Ltd. 200.33.40.0/24 AS11172 Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. 200.34.0.0/20 AS6342 Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey 200.53.0.0/19 AS13878 Diveo do Brasil Telecomunicacoes Ltda 202.1.224.0/24 AS10097 FLOWCOM Flow Communications 2/541 Kent St Sydney NSW 2000 202.9.55.0/24 AS2764 AAPT AAPT Limited 202.9.57.0/24 AS2764 AAPT AAPT Limited 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 202.61.75.0/24 AS9927 PHILCOMNET-PH A Multihomed ISP Company 202.74.232.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 202.74.233.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 202.83.120.0/21 AS37972 202.83.124.0/24 AS37972 202.83.125.0/24 AS37972 202.83.126.0/24 AS37972 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network 202.133.70.0/24 AS38616 WORLDCALL-AS-KHI Worldcall Telecom Limited 202.160.152.0/22 AS10113 DATAFAST-AP DATAFAST TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD 202.174.125.0/24 AS9498 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 202.176.1.0/24 AS9942 COMINDICO-AP SOUL Converged Communications Australia 202.179.131.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 202.179.134.0/24 AS23966 LDN-AS-PK LINKdotNET Telecom Limited 202.179.144.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 203.23.1.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.24.38.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.30.127.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.32.86.0/23 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.32.86.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.32.87.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.32.188.0/24 AS1221 ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd 203.142.219.0/24 AS45149 203.175.107.0/24 AS45595 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecom Company Limited 205.150.0.0/15 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 205.175.214.0/24 AS5583 ORANGE-BUSINESS-SERVICES-BENELUX Orange Business Services (formerly Equant) AS for BENELUX 205.207.148.0/23 AS812 ROGERS-CABLE - Rogers Cable Communications Inc. 206.72.192.0/23 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc. 206.72.194.0/23 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc. 206.123.129.0/24 AS10790 INREACH-AS - InReach Internet 206.180.240.0/20 AS12083 KNOLOGY-NET - Knology Holdings 206.197.184.0/24 AS23304 DATOTEL-STL-AS - Datotel LLC, a NetLabs LLC Company 207.174.131.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.132.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.152.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.154.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.155.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.200.0/24 AS22658 EARTHNET - Earthnet, Inc. 207.174.248.0/21 AS6653 PRIVATEI - privateI, LLC 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc. 208.64.240.0/21 AS13871 TELEBYTE-NW - Telebyte NW 208.83.53.0/24 AS40569 YGOMI-AS - Ygomi LLC 209.148.64.0/19 AS13773 TELNETCOMM - Telnet Communications 209.177.64.0/20 AS6461 MFNX MFN - Metromedia Fiber Network 209.213.0.0/20 AS33005 ELTOPIA - Eltopia.com, LLC 210.56.150.0/23 AS38138 INTECH-TRANSIT-BD InTech Online Limited, INTERNET SERVICE LIMITED 216.21.160.0/20 AS13818 PHX-INTL-TELEPORT - Phoenix International Teleport 216.58.200.0/24 AS18530 ISOMEDIA-1 - Isomedia Inc. 216.194.160.0/20 AS13818 PHX-INTL-TELEPORT - Phoenix International Teleport Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)nanog.org eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)apops.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0

BGP visibility for /24 End User Allocation
by Eric Germann 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

Long time on-again-off-again lurker. Looking to multihome in the most efficient mode. Our two upstreams are AS11530 (Embarq) and AS10796 (Time Warner). Diverse routed fiber from each at 10Mbps. Our traffic profile is highly asymmetric as a consumer of bandwidth (12-15Mbps average inbound aggregate, 2-3Mbps aggregate very bursty outbound). Years ago when I tinkered with BGP there were substantial issues with getting any prefix too small through filters to see the "greater Internet" (IIRC it was a /19 at that time). Given we really could justify a /24 realistically, what is the current status of filtering in terms of having that /24 get to the "vast majority" of the Internet given the two providers in question? Thanks for any advice in advance. EKG

4 3

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Analysis Role Account 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 24 Sep, 2011 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 374059 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 168238 Deaggregation factor: 2.22 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 184911 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 38886 Prefixes per ASN: 9.62 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 32232 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15494 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5223 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 138 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 35 Max AS path prepend of ASN (23456) 31 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1402 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 772 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 1762 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1431 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 3276 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 97 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2479145472 Equivalent to 147 /8s, 196 /16s and 194 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 66.9 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 66.9 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 91.4 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 156426 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 93852 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 30727 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.05 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 90378 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 37990 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4575 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 19.75 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1262 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 709 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 88 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 627667040 Equivalent to 37 /8s, 105 /16s and 112 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 79.6 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 131072-132095, 132096-133119 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 143860 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 73754 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.95 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 115959 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 48009 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 14685 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 7.90 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5659 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1562 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 12 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 804997888 Equivalent to 47 /8s, 251 /16s and 75 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 64.0 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 89445 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 50349 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.78 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 82150 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 54043 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 15994 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 5.14 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7970 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2509 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 33 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1018 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 489770368 Equivalent to 29 /8s, 49 /16s and 77 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 78.9 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 196608-198655 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 34957 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 7779 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.49 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 34257 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 17926 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1527 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.43 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 447 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 273 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 310 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 89159552 Equivalent to 5 /8s, 80 /16s and 119 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 59.0 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 262144-263167 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 8500 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 1993 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.26 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 6578 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1995 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 488 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 13.48 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 156 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 102 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 3 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 26803968 Equivalent to 1 /8s, 152 /16s and 255 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 39.9 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 2503 11048 956 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17974 2004 519 33 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 7545 1599 303 86 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 4755 1555 639 169 TATA Communications formerly 7552 1397 1064 7 Vietel Corporation 24560 1182 337 194 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia 9829 1158 989 28 BSNL National Internet Backbo 9583 1085 80 502 Sify Limited 4808 1074 2098 304 CNCGROUP IP network: China169 18101 950 117 142 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 3561 3817 226 bellsouth.net, inc. 18566 1913 365 238 Covad Communications 1785 1826 680 123 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 7029 1706 1008 194 Windstream Communications Inc 4323 1623 1082 391 Time Warner Telecom 20115 1597 1543 633 Charter Communications 22773 1458 2907 99 Cox Communications, Inc. 30036 1420 264 677 Mediacom Communications Corp 19262 1396 4728 400 Verizon Global Networks 7018 1332 7050 869 AT&T WorldNet Services Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8402 967 352 13 Corbina telecom 34984 566 108 181 BILISIM TELEKOM 20940 542 181 420 Akamai Technologies European 6830 533 1813 325 UPC Distribution Services 3320 493 8167 381 Deutsche Telekom AG 3292 477 2082 407 TDC Tele Danmark 12479 476 594 8 Uni2 Autonomous System 8866 462 133 26 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 29049 424 31 55 AzerSat LLC. 3301 405 1904 354 TeliaNet Sweden Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 1679 309 156 TVCABLE BOGOTA 8151 1416 2795 354 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 28573 1362 1013 70 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 7303 1161 681 173 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 14420 734 58 88 CORPORACION NACIONAL DE TELEC 6503 582 450 69 AVANTEL, S.A. 22047 580 322 17 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 27947 566 55 79 Telconet S.A 3816 535 232 98 Empresa Nacional de Telecomun 11172 516 85 91 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 812 147 43 LINKdotNET AS number 8452 710 445 11 TEDATA 15475 451 74 8 Nile Online 36992 291 415 14 Etisalat MISR 3741 274 938 229 The Internet Solution 15706 244 32 6 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 6713 242 519 14 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 33776 239 13 8 Starcomms Nigeria Limited 12258 198 28 58 Vodacom Internet Company 29571 190 17 11 Ci Telecom Autonomous system Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 3561 3817 226 bellsouth.net, inc. 23456 3276 774 1775 32-bit ASN transition 4766 2503 11048 956 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17974 2004 519 33 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 18566 1913 365 238 Covad Communications 1785 1826 680 123 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 7029 1706 1008 194 Windstream Communications Inc 10620 1679 309 156 TVCABLE BOGOTA 4323 1623 1082 391 Time Warner Telecom 7545 1599 303 86 TPG Internet Pty Ltd Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 17974 2004 1971 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 1785 1826 1703 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 18566 1913 1675 Covad Communications 4766 2503 1547 Korea Telecom (KIX) 10620 1679 1523 TVCABLE BOGOTA 7545 1599 1513 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 7029 1706 1512 Windstream Communications Inc 23456 3276 1501 32-bit ASN transition 7552 1397 1390 Vietel Corporation 4755 1555 1386 TATA Communications formerly Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 15132 UNALLOCATED 12.9.150.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 32567 UNALLOCATED 12.14.170.0/24 4323 Time Warner Telecom 32567 UNALLOCATED 12.25.107.0/24 4323 Time Warner Telecom 26973 UNALLOCATED 12.39.152.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 26973 UNALLOCATED 12.39.154.0/23 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 26973 UNALLOCATED 12.39.155.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 26973 UNALLOCATED 12.39.159.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 25639 UNALLOCATED 12.41.169.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 13317 UNALLOCATED 12.44.10.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 23502 UNALLOCATED 12.44.44.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 24.225.128.0/18 36377 Comcast Telecommunications, I 24.225.192.0/23 36377 Comcast Telecommunications, I 24.225.192.0/18 36377 Comcast Telecommunications, I 24.225.224.0/21 36377 Comcast Telecommunications, I 24.225.237.0/24 36377 Comcast Telecommunications, I 24.225.248.0/21 36377 Comcast Telecommunications, I 41.222.79.0/24 36938 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.223.92.0/22 36936 >>UNKNOWN<< 46.18.104.0/21 23456 32-bit ASN transition 62.61.220.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:19 /9:12 /10:27 /11:81 /12:234 /13:464 /14:801 /15:1416 /16:11985 /17:5990 /18:10025 /19:19811 /20:27043 /21:27104 /22:36625 /23:34934 /24:194103 /25:1117 /26:1336 /27:752 /28:171 /29:4 /30:0 /31:0 /32:5 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 6389 2198 3561 bellsouth.net, inc. 18566 1869 1913 Covad Communications 10620 1574 1679 TVCABLE BOGOTA 23456 1564 3276 32-bit ASN transition 7029 1403 1706 Windstream Communications Inc 30036 1377 1420 Mediacom Communications Corp 11492 1114 1152 Cable One 7011 1057 1182 Citizens Utilities 1785 1053 1826 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 22773 947 1458 Cox Communications, Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:384 2:297 4:15 5:1 6:3 8:351 12:1956 13:1 14:543 15:13 16:3 17:7 20:10 23:35 24:1681 27:945 31:543 32:64 33:4 34:2 36:4 38:742 40:108 41:2586 42:48 44:3 46:992 47:3 49:257 50:421 52:13 54:2 55:4 56:2 57:35 58:875 59:492 60:340 61:1179 62:1093 63:1940 64:4048 65:2303 66:3968 67:1951 68:1116 69:3188 70:814 71:377 72:1856 74:2455 75:349 76:341 77:870 78:790 79:479 80:1126 81:838 82:505 83:517 84:622 85:1086 86:409 87:873 88:351 89:1581 90:267 91:4120 92:524 93:1289 94:1325 95:904 96:437 97:276 98:931 99:37 101:210 103:316 106:70 107:52 108:79 109:1026 110:669 111:784 112:324 113:446 114:566 115:688 116:864 117:711 118:891 119:1210 120:334 121:686 122:1609 123:1003 124:1359 125:1358 128:244 129:179 130:165 131:583 132:120 133:21 134:216 135:54 136:212 137:139 138:289 139:120 140:494 141:287 142:387 143:411 144:486 145:58 146:471 147:215 148:639 149:259 150:153 151:191 152:446 153:177 154:6 155:395 156:203 157:359 158:146 159:463 160:325 161:207 162:339 163:177 164:507 165:373 166:534 167:432 168:751 169:146 170:860 171:83 172:1 173:1653 174:643 175:400 176:212 177:275 178:998 180:1079 181:30 182:626 183:219 184:378 185:1 186:1458 187:669 188:944 189:868 190:5164 192:5906 193:5018 194:3529 195:3069 196:1250 197:175 198:3591 199:4124 200:5520 201:1636 202:8518 203:8483 204:4254 205:2341 206:2677 207:2827 208:4030 209:3455 210:2670 211:1464 212:2087 213:1776 214:781 215:76 216:4879 217:1609 218:559 219:339 220:1227 221:513 222:342 223:263 End of report

1 0

Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
by Pradeep Bangera 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

*//Sorry for the earlier misguiding email subject//* Dear All, Thanks for all the replies! I would like to see more, to learn more! Since I (Research Assistant) am not from network operations and management domain, I am trying to model the transit pricing function. In my research work, I am using a pricing model from this work! This pricing model is as follows:-- Transit price = Constant * (aggregate traffic)^0.75, which is exactly similar to the one described by Ryan Malayter in his earlier message. Hence I am wondering, whether the pricing should be a linear(CDR*[95th peak]) or sub-linear (like the above)? With Regards Pradeep Research Assistant Institute IMDEA Networks Madrid, Spain On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 09:40 -0500, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit > pricing (Florian Weimer) > 2. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network (Owen DeLong) > 3. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network (John Curran) > 4. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network (John Curran) > 5. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Randy McAnally) > 6. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Ryan Rawdon) > 7. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (chris) > 8. Commercial DNS service opinions? (Jay Ashworth) > 9. Re: Commercial DNS service opinions? (Christopher Morrow) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:15:46 +0000 > From: Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)bfk.de> > To: Pradeep Bangera <pradeep.bangera(a)imdea.org> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit > pricing > Message-ID: <824o03ohjx.fsf(a)mid.bfk.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > * Pradeep Bangera: > > > Question: Does this over-usage bandwidth charge a linear cost function > > or is it sub-linear like the committed bandwidth pricing? > > Percentile-based pricing is never linear. It's not even a continuous > function of bandwidth usage. This is inherent to the percentile > functional, so it doesn't matter how the quantity that comes out of that > is priced. > > -- > Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)bfk.de> > BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ > Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 > D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:01:23 -0700 > From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > To: Benson Schliesser <bensons(a)queuefull.net> > Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie(a)isc.org>, nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <277A7743-14E7-4FC2-91D2-E0772F262DFF(a)delong.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates that the membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias. I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates. But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid. > > > > This statement ignores the existence of the petition process and the relatively low threshold required to get a candidate not approved or selected by the nomcom onto the ballot if there is even a very limited desire to do so. > > > As for my use of "existing establishment": I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful. > > > > My inclination is that the lack of participation generally indicates that the majority are not upset by the way ARIN is doing things. I know that the beginning of my participation in ARIN was the result of my deciding that some of the ways ARIN was doing things needed changing. > > >> ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members. > >> if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning > >> and your proposed alternative. > > > > One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom. Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership. For these reasons I previously noted that "ARIN has a pretty good governance structure" and I continue to think so. It could be improved by increased member involvement, as well as broader involvement from the community. (For instance, policy petitions should include responses from the entire affected community, not just PPML.) But my criticisms should be interpreted as constructive, and are not an indictment of the whole approach. > > > > OK, so you are aware of the petition process after all. That makes your statement at the top of this message somewhat perplexing. > > I agree that increased member participation would be a good thing. > > I do not believe that including petition responses from people who aren't willing to join PPML even if it's just long enough to support the petition in question would be useful. It takes almost no effort to join PPML, support a petition, and then leave PPML if you are that determined not to participate. Further, I think that it is reasonable to expect at least a modicum of participation in the policy process in order to participate in the petition process. Requiring supporters to be on PPML at the time they support the petition seems like a reasonable threshold to me. Finally, absent some mechanism such as requiring a PPML subscription, it might be somewhat difficult to avoid petition stuffing. > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:51:46 +0000 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > To: Paul Vixie <vixie(a)isc.org> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <BCFADB61-9052-434E-BCA9-2EE7170EC339(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500 > > Benson Schliesser <bensons(a)queuefull.net> wrote: > > > >> As for my use of "existing establishment": I'm of the impression > >> that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most > >> ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on > >> why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in > >> fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for > >> themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my > >> impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member > >> participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more > >> useful. > > > > i think our participation level in elections is quite high and i'll ask > > for details and see them published here. > > Paul - > > Information regarding ARIN's last election is online here: > > <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html> > > I've attached the relevant section regarding participation, and it should > be noted that more than 12% of the potential electorate voted in last year's > election. This is typical turnout for our elections, and while I have been > told anecdotally that this is relatively high turnout for membership > organization, I do not have hard data points for comparison at this time. > > I would encourage all NANOG members to confirm their designated member > representatives with ARIN (i.e. the official organizational contacts) and > vote (or if someone else in your organization encourage them to do so) in > the upcoming ARIN election for the ARIN Advisory Council and the ARIN Board > of Trustee positions. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > === From <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html> > > 2010 VOTER STATISTICS > > 3,690 ARIN members as of 21 September 2010 > > 2,834 Eligible voters* as of 21 September 2010 > > *ARIN members in good standing with properly registered Designated Member Representatives on record 1 January 2010 > > 355 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Board of Trustees election. > > 356 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Advisory Council election. > > 364 unique member organizations cast a ballot in either the Board of Trustees or Advisory Council election > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:35:02 +0000 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > To: Jim Duncan <jduncan(a)juniper.net> > Cc: "vixie(a)isc.org" <vixie(a)isc.org>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <AFB08AFB-3443-4AB1-9739-2BA9E6992F45(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Jim Duncan wrote: > > With my parliamentarian hat on: > > A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates for election. it should never be a gating function; it is an important safeguard to allow the nomination of qualified individuals outside the nominating committee and "from the floor" before votes are cast. > > ... > > > Although organizations may decide for themselves how a nominating committee will operate, it is inconsistent with the general principles of parliamentary process -- whichever standard you choose, Robert's, Sturgis, or another -- for all candidates to be forced to pass through the gauntlet of the nominating committee. > > Jim - > > I agree with you in principle regarding the NomCom's essential > function, but note that your requirement that the Nominating > Committee pass _all_ candidates minimally qualified is not the > only valid approach. In the case of ARIN, the NomCom process > provides a sufficient number of qualified qualified candidates > but is specifically not required to provide all such candidates > <https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/nomcom_faqs.html> > > The protection of the parliamentary representation principle that > you allude to (i.e. the freedom for members of an organization to > choose its own leadership) to is instead provided via a petition > process. This mechanism provides a comparable safeguard by allowing > anyone to be added to the ballot if they desire such and can show > some support in the community for their candidacy. > > Note that ARIN's initial Bylaws only provided for direct selection > of new Board members by the ARIN Board from a list of candidates > chosen by the ARIN AC. In subsequent years, this was changed to be > a separate NomCom, and a petition process requiring support of 15% > of the electorate was added. The petition threshold was then lowered > to 5% of the electorate, and then again recently lowered to be now > 2% of the electorate. The ARIN Board has reviewed the election process > in each of the recent years to see if any further changes are required. > > Further evolution of this process is quite possible, and discussion > here (or on an ARIN mailing list) will help inform the ARIN Board > about the community views on this matter. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:56:05 -0400 > From: Randy McAnally <rsm(a)fast-serv.com> > To: "rpug(a)linux.com" <rpug(a)linux.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: <CACA4923-5E3B-4A8A-A699-3F2634476E4D(a)fast-serv.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Not able to connect to 146.115.38.21 via fios or verizon 3g so the problem doesn't seem to be fios specific. > > Sent from my IPhone (pardon the typo's) > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, "Ryan Pugatch" <rpug(a)linux.com> wrote: > > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug(a)linux.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? > >>> > >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us > >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. > >>> > >> > >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some > >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol... > >> > >> just sayin'! > >> > >> -chris > >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) > >> > >> > > > > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:35:16 -0400 > From: Ryan Rawdon <ryan(a)u13.net> > To: rpug(a)linux.com > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: <A323BE5B-FD0C-4AC5-8198-8CE7E3DDD632(a)u13.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote: > > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug(a)linux.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? > >>> > >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us > >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. > >>> > >> > >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some > >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol... > >> > >> just sayin'! > >> > >> -chris > >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) > >> > >> > > > > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21 > > > > > > >From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result: > > HTTP: timeout > HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page) > also can ping via ICMP just fine > > > Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:38:26 -0400 > From: chris <tknchris(a)gmail.com> > To: Ryan Rawdon <ryan(a)u13.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: > <CAKnNFz-m+mrdbZPA8bwhoCBD+Bp-Ko6TAhP-voS4cn9BmQV6TA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > HTTP doesnt appear to be open from any network I try Verizon or otherwise so > I'm not sure its network related > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ryan Rawdon <ryan(a)u13.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote: > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug(a)linux.com> wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? > > >>> > > >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to > > us > > >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. > > >>> > > >> > > >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some > > >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol... > > >> > > >> just sayin'! > > >> > > >> -chris > > >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) > > >> > > >> > > > > > > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21 > > > > > > > > > > From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result: > > > > HTTP: timeout > > HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page) > > also can ping via ICMP just fine > > > > > > Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is > > handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:17:38 -0400 (EDT) > From: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> > To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Commercial DNS service opinions? > Message-ID: > <25076238.2837.1316787458644.JavaMail.root(a)benjamin.baylink.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Open, Super, Dyn? > > Will any of them do hidden-master? > > Off list; I'll summarize. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:40:37 -0400 > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > To: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> > Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Commercial DNS service opinions? > Message-ID: > <CAL9jLaaPc=YVOtKkL8G1p_TqFWPj8VyzGz=rapfNSy0vYREujA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote: > > Open, Super, Dyn? > > > > Will any of them do hidden-master? > > > > Off list; I'll summarize. > > recursive AND authoritative? or ? > > > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 103 > **************************************

2 1

Verizon / FiOS network
by Ryan Pugatch 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

Hi, Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. Traceroutes appear sane, so just wondering if anyone else is running into similar troubles. Ryan

6 7

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 103
by Pradeep Bangera 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

Dear All, Thanks for all the replies! I would like to see more, to learn more! Since I (Research Assistant) am not from network operations and management domain, I am trying to model the transit pricing function. In my research work, I am using a pricing model from this work! This pricing model is as follows:-- Transit price = Constant * (aggregate traffic)^0.75, which is exactly similar to the one described by Ryan Malayter in his earlier message. Hence I am wondering, whether the pricing should be a linear(CDR*[95th peak]) or sub-linear (like the above)? With Regards Pradeep Research Assistant Institute IMDEA Networks Madrid, Spain On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 09:40 -0500, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit > pricing (Florian Weimer) > 2. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network (Owen DeLong) > 3. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network (John Curran) > 4. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network (John Curran) > 5. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Randy McAnally) > 6. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Ryan Rawdon) > 7. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (chris) > 8. Commercial DNS service opinions? (Jay Ashworth) > 9. Re: Commercial DNS service opinions? (Christopher Morrow) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:15:46 +0000 > From: Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)bfk.de> > To: Pradeep Bangera <pradeep.bangera(a)imdea.org> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit > pricing > Message-ID: <824o03ohjx.fsf(a)mid.bfk.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > * Pradeep Bangera: > > > Question: Does this over-usage bandwidth charge a linear cost function > > or is it sub-linear like the committed bandwidth pricing? > > Percentile-based pricing is never linear. It's not even a continuous > function of bandwidth usage. This is inherent to the percentile > functional, so it doesn't matter how the quantity that comes out of that > is priced. > > -- > Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)bfk.de> > BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ > Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 > D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:01:23 -0700 > From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > To: Benson Schliesser <bensons(a)queuefull.net> > Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie(a)isc.org>, nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <277A7743-14E7-4FC2-91D2-E0772F262DFF(a)delong.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates that the membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias. I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates. But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid. > > > > This statement ignores the existence of the petition process and the relatively low threshold required to get a candidate not approved or selected by the nomcom onto the ballot if there is even a very limited desire to do so. > > > As for my use of "existing establishment": I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful. > > > > My inclination is that the lack of participation generally indicates that the majority are not upset by the way ARIN is doing things. I know that the beginning of my participation in ARIN was the result of my deciding that some of the ways ARIN was doing things needed changing. > > >> ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members. > >> if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning > >> and your proposed alternative. > > > > One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom. Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership. For these reasons I previously noted that "ARIN has a pretty good governance structure" and I continue to think so. It could be improved by increased member involvement, as well as broader involvement from the community. (For instance, policy petitions should include responses from the entire affected community, not just PPML.) But my criticisms should be interpreted as constructive, and are not an indictment of the whole approach. > > > > OK, so you are aware of the petition process after all. That makes your statement at the top of this message somewhat perplexing. > > I agree that increased member participation would be a good thing. > > I do not believe that including petition responses from people who aren't willing to join PPML even if it's just long enough to support the petition in question would be useful. It takes almost no effort to join PPML, support a petition, and then leave PPML if you are that determined not to participate. Further, I think that it is reasonable to expect at least a modicum of participation in the policy process in order to participate in the petition process. Requiring supporters to be on PPML at the time they support the petition seems like a reasonable threshold to me. Finally, absent some mechanism such as requiring a PPML subscription, it might be somewhat difficult to avoid petition stuffing. > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:51:46 +0000 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > To: Paul Vixie <vixie(a)isc.org> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <BCFADB61-9052-434E-BCA9-2EE7170EC339(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500 > > Benson Schliesser <bensons(a)queuefull.net> wrote: > > > >> As for my use of "existing establishment": I'm of the impression > >> that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most > >> ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on > >> why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in > >> fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for > >> themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my > >> impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member > >> participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more > >> useful. > > > > i think our participation level in elections is quite high and i'll ask > > for details and see them published here. > > Paul - > > Information regarding ARIN's last election is online here: > > <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html> > > I've attached the relevant section regarding participation, and it should > be noted that more than 12% of the potential electorate voted in last year's > election. This is typical turnout for our elections, and while I have been > told anecdotally that this is relatively high turnout for membership > organization, I do not have hard data points for comparison at this time. > > I would encourage all NANOG members to confirm their designated member > representatives with ARIN (i.e. the official organizational contacts) and > vote (or if someone else in your organization encourage them to do so) in > the upcoming ARIN election for the ARIN Advisory Council and the ARIN Board > of Trustee positions. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > === From <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html> > > 2010 VOTER STATISTICS > > 3,690 ARIN members as of 21 September 2010 > > 2,834 Eligible voters* as of 21 September 2010 > > *ARIN members in good standing with properly registered Designated Member Representatives on record 1 January 2010 > > 355 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Board of Trustees election. > > 356 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Advisory Council election. > > 364 unique member organizations cast a ballot in either the Board of Trustees or Advisory Council election > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:35:02 +0000 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > To: Jim Duncan <jduncan(a)juniper.net> > Cc: "vixie(a)isc.org" <vixie(a)isc.org>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <AFB08AFB-3443-4AB1-9739-2BA9E6992F45(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Jim Duncan wrote: > > With my parliamentarian hat on: > > A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates for election. it should never be a gating function; it is an important safeguard to allow the nomination of qualified individuals outside the nominating committee and "from the floor" before votes are cast. > > ... > > > Although organizations may decide for themselves how a nominating committee will operate, it is inconsistent with the general principles of parliamentary process -- whichever standard you choose, Robert's, Sturgis, or another -- for all candidates to be forced to pass through the gauntlet of the nominating committee. > > Jim - > > I agree with you in principle regarding the NomCom's essential > function, but note that your requirement that the Nominating > Committee pass _all_ candidates minimally qualified is not the > only valid approach. In the case of ARIN, the NomCom process > provides a sufficient number of qualified qualified candidates > but is specifically not required to provide all such candidates > <https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/nomcom_faqs.html> > > The protection of the parliamentary representation principle that > you allude to (i.e. the freedom for members of an organization to > choose its own leadership) to is instead provided via a petition > process. This mechanism provides a comparable safeguard by allowing > anyone to be added to the ballot if they desire such and can show > some support in the community for their candidacy. > > Note that ARIN's initial Bylaws only provided for direct selection > of new Board members by the ARIN Board from a list of candidates > chosen by the ARIN AC. In subsequent years, this was changed to be > a separate NomCom, and a petition process requiring support of 15% > of the electorate was added. The petition threshold was then lowered > to 5% of the electorate, and then again recently lowered to be now > 2% of the electorate. The ARIN Board has reviewed the election process > in each of the recent years to see if any further changes are required. > > Further evolution of this process is quite possible, and discussion > here (or on an ARIN mailing list) will help inform the ARIN Board > about the community views on this matter. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:56:05 -0400 > From: Randy McAnally <rsm(a)fast-serv.com> > To: "rpug(a)linux.com" <rpug(a)linux.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: <CACA4923-5E3B-4A8A-A699-3F2634476E4D(a)fast-serv.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Not able to connect to 146.115.38.21 via fios or verizon 3g so the problem doesn't seem to be fios specific. > > Sent from my IPhone (pardon the typo's) > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, "Ryan Pugatch" <rpug(a)linux.com> wrote: > > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug(a)linux.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? > >>> > >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us > >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. > >>> > >> > >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some > >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol... > >> > >> just sayin'! > >> > >> -chris > >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) > >> > >> > > > > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:35:16 -0400 > From: Ryan Rawdon <ryan(a)u13.net> > To: rpug(a)linux.com > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: <A323BE5B-FD0C-4AC5-8198-8CE7E3DDD632(a)u13.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote: > > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug(a)linux.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? > >>> > >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us > >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. > >>> > >> > >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some > >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol... > >> > >> just sayin'! > >> > >> -chris > >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) > >> > >> > > > > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21 > > > > > > >From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result: > > HTTP: timeout > HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page) > also can ping via ICMP just fine > > > Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:38:26 -0400 > From: chris <tknchris(a)gmail.com> > To: Ryan Rawdon <ryan(a)u13.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: > <CAKnNFz-m+mrdbZPA8bwhoCBD+Bp-Ko6TAhP-voS4cn9BmQV6TA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > HTTP doesnt appear to be open from any network I try Verizon or otherwise so > I'm not sure its network related > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ryan Rawdon <ryan(a)u13.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote: > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug(a)linux.com> wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? > > >>> > > >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to > > us > > >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. > > >>> > > >> > > >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some > > >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol... > > >> > > >> just sayin'! > > >> > > >> -chris > > >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) > > >> > > >> > > > > > > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21 > > > > > > > > > > From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result: > > > > HTTP: timeout > > HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page) > > also can ping via ICMP just fine > > > > > > Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is > > handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:17:38 -0400 (EDT) > From: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> > To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Commercial DNS service opinions? > Message-ID: > <25076238.2837.1316787458644.JavaMail.root(a)benjamin.baylink.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Open, Super, Dyn? > > Will any of them do hidden-master? > > Off list; I'll summarize. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:40:37 -0400 > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > To: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> > Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Commercial DNS service opinions? > Message-ID: > <CAL9jLaaPc=YVOtKkL8G1p_TqFWPj8VyzGz=rapfNSy0vYREujA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote: > > Open, Super, Dyn? > > > > Will any of them do hidden-master? > > > > Off list; I'll summarize. > > recursive AND authoritative? or ? > > > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 103 > **************************************

1 0

Commercial DNS service opinions?
by Jay Ashworth 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

Open, Super, Dyn? Will any of them do hidden-master? Off list; I'll summarize. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

2 1

Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing
by Pradeep Bangera 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

Hello NANOG, I have a fundamental question regarding 95th percentile pricing. I will make some prerequisite assumptions to set $/Mbps values before posting my actual question. Eg., For 1Gbps commitment, I will pay roughly $3/Mbps. Similarly for 10Gbps, 100Gbps I may pay $2/Mbps and $1/Mbps. This appears like a sub-linear economy of scale pricing model followed in transit pricing. Now if I commit 1 Gbps over a 10Gbps provisioned link, I will pay fixed monthly fee of $3000 for the 95th peak not exceeding the committed rate of 1Gbps. Now if my 95th peak is above the committed rate, say, 2Gbps or 4 Gbps or 8 Gbps, I believe I have to pay: $3000 + [over-usage_bandwidth_charges] monthly. Question: Does this over-usage bandwidth charge a linear cost function or is it sub-linear like the committed bandwidth pricing? I mean, will it cost me the same $/Mbps as over-usage charges for all 2Gbps, 4Gbps and 8Gbps 95th percentile peaks? or is it Over-usage_charges(2Gbps) > Over-usage_charges(4Gbps) > Over-usage_charges(8Gbps) ? I will be grateful for the replies! With regards Pradeep Bangera Research Assistant Institute IMDEA Networks Madrid, Spain

8 9

automated response
by Robert J. Fehn 22 Sep '11

22 Sep '11

I will be out of the office until Monday, October 3rd. I will be checking email daily and, there's always the cell phone. METCOM: Any IT concerns can be handled by Christin Edwards at 301-373-4733 Ext 262 or, email her at: cedwards(a)metcom.org CALS: BOD issues can come to me or Vice Chair, Stanis Inscoe. Call or text if important. PERSONAL: I'll get back to you within 24hrs if you leave contact info.. Thanks! Bob

1 0

Internet mauled by bears
by Eugen Leitl 22 Sep '11

22 Sep '11

http://news.techeye.net/internet/internet-attacked-by-bears#.TnZXk5rhOv8.re… Internet attacked by bears Is there a picnic basket in this node? 16 Sep 2011 09:44 | by Nick Farrell in Rome | Filed in Internet Internet attacked by bears - Techies in Idaho have been scratching their heads trying to work out why the state has the slowest networks in the Land of the Free. Pando Network released the findings of a nationwide study on internet speeds. It found Idaho has the slowest networks, while Rhode Island, New Jersey and Massachusetts are at the top of the pack. The New York Times took it upon itself to find out why Idaho's internet was the slowest and came out with the surprising result that it was all due to bears. Now many of you would probably think that slow internet times are probably due to the fact that only 1,567,582 live in Idaho and telephone companies can't be bothered investing in cable. It is known as the Potato State because that is its major crop and several of its politicians have been root vegetables. But according to the Times, another problem is that the internet depends on line-of-site towers to get over the more mountainous regions. This is where the bears come in. Bears like the internet towers because they are ideal for scratching that part of their backs that they can't normally itch. Your average bear will rub against a tower and cause it to lose line of site connections. Barry Ramsay told the Times that when it happened work crews had to ride up in snowmobiles to discover the problem. He pointed out that these are the kind of problems city folk probably don't have in an urban area because there is a bear shortage.

19 22