- Test - lists.nanog.org

PCH Peering Survey 2021
by Bill Woodcock 29 Oct '21

29 Oct '21

Background: Five and ten years ago PCH conducted comprehensive global surveys characterizing Internet peering agreements. They are the only ones of their kind, and are relied upon by legislators and regulators throughout the world to understand the Internet interconnection landscape. Our write-ups of the prior surveys can be found here: https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011… <https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011…> https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016… <https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016…> …and video of the NANOG presentation of the 2016 results is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPuoBmxyXMc <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPuoBmxyXMc> At the time of the 2011 survey, we committed to repeating the survey every five years, to provide time-series data about the direction peering trends take. We’re now conducting the third iteration of the survey. Among other things, the surveys have helped establish a better understanding of trends in: • The increasingly uniform global norms of interconnection • National preferences within the network operator community for country of governing law • The long tail of small networks which don’t yet support IPv6 routing • The significance of multilateral peering agreements in the density of the interconnection mesh These findings, particularly the first, have been invaluable in giving regulators in the vast majority of the world’s countries a data-driven basis for refraining from prescriptively regulating Internet interconnection. They have demonstrated in objective terms that the Internet self-regulates in a way that’s more globally uniform and closely harmonized than any coordination of national regulatory bodies could accomplish. Participation: The survey is global in scope, and our goal is to reflect the diversity of peering agreements in the world. Your participation ensures that your norms and ways of doing business are represented accurately and proportionately in the dataset. If you don’t participate, the way you do business will be less well-represented in the data, and will seem less normal to regulators and policy-makers. We’re interested in large ISPs and small ISPs, ISPs in Afghanistan and in Zimbabwe, bilateral agreements and multilateral, private and public. Our intent is to be as comprehensive as possible. In 2011, the responses we received represented 4,331 networks in 96 countries, or 86% of the world’s ISPs at that time. In 2016, responses represented 10,794 networks in 148 countries, or 60% of the world’s ISPs in 2016. Our aim is to be equally inclusive this year. Since our principal method of soliciting participation is via NOG mailing lists, I’m afraid many of you will see this message several times, on different lists, for which we apologize. Privacy: In 2011 and 2016, we promised to collect the smallest set of data necessary to answer the questions, to perform the analysis immediately, and not to retain the data after the analysis was accomplished. In that way, we ensured that the privacy of respondents was fully protected. We did as we said, no data was leaked, and the whole community benefited from the trust that was extended to us. We ask for your trust again now as we make the same commitment to protect the privacy of all respondents, using the same process as was successfully employed the last two times. We are asking for no more data than is absolutely necessary. We will perform the analysis immediately upon receiving all of the data. We will delete the data once the analysis has been performed. The Survey: We would like to know your Autonomous System Number, and the following five pieces of information relative to each other AS you peer with: • Your peer’s ASN (peers only, not upstream transit providers or downstream customers) • Whether a written and signed peering agreement exists (the alternative being a less formal arrangement, such as a "handshake agreement") • Whether the terms are roughly symmetric (the alternative being that they describe an agreement with different terms for each of the two parties, such as one compensating the other, or one receiving more or fewer than full customer routes) • Whether a jurisdiction of governing law is defined • Whether IPv6 routes are being exchanged (this year, we’ll still assume that IPv4 are) The easiest way for us to receive the information is as a tab-text or CSV file or an Excel spreadsheet, consisting of rows with the following columns: Your ASN: Integer Peer ASN: Integer Written agreement: Boolean [true,1,yes,y] or [false,0,no,n] Symmetric: Boolean [true,1,yes,y] or [false,0,no,n] Governing Law: ISO 3166 two-digit country-code, or empty IPv6 Routes: Boolean [true,1,yes,y] or [false,0,no,n] For instance: 42 <tab> 715 <tab> false <tab> true <tab> us <tab> true <cr> 42 <tab> 3856 <tab> true <tab> true <tab> us <tab> true <cr> We need the ASNs so we can avoid double-counting a single pair of peers when we hear from both of them, and so that when we hear about a relationship in responses from both peers we can see how closely the two responses match, an important check on the quality of the survey. As soon as we've collated the data, we will protect your privacy by discarding the raw data of the responses, and only final aggregate statistics will be published. We will never disclose any ASN or any information about any ASN. If you’re peering with an MLPA route-server, you’re welcome to include just the route-server’s ASN, if that’s easiest, rather than trying to include each of the peer ASNs on the other side of the route-server. Either way is fine. If all of your sessions have the same characteristics, you can just tell us what those characteristics are once, your own ASN once, and give us a simple list of your peer ASNs. If your number of peers is small enough to be pasted or typed into an email, rather than attached as a file, and that’s simpler, just go ahead and do that. If you have written peering agreements that are covered by non-disclosure agreements, or if your organizational policy precludes disclosing your peers, but you’d still like to participate in the survey, please let us know, and we’ll work with whatever information you’re able to give us and try to ensure that your practices are statistically represented in our results. If you're able to help us, please email me the data in whatever form you can. If you need a non-disclosure, we're happy to sign one. Finally, if there are questions you’d like us to try to answer when we analyze the data, please suggest them, and if there are any additional questions you’d like us to include in future iterations of the survey, please let us know so that we can consider including them in the 2026 survey. Please respond by replying to this email, by the middle of November, two weeks from now. Thank you for considering participating. We very much appreciate it, and we look forward to returning the results to the community. -Bill Woodcock Executive Director Packet Clearing House

2 2

What are best practices for RPKI ROV in transit networks....
by ssw＠iu.edu 29 Oct '21

29 Oct '21

Greetings, We seek input on best practices for implementing RPKI ROV in a transit (partial transit) network. The Internet2 network provides partial transit for many of the K-12 and higher education institutions in the US. Our customer routes number just over 6,000. We work with our customers to assist with the adoption of MANRS, including creating RPKI ROAs for their resources. At some point in the future, we'd like to implement RPKI route origin validation (e.g., dropping invalids). Given that some routes may have mistaken ROAs that resolve to an invalid state, is there a standard/best practice for processing exceptions? Or, do transit providers that implement ROAs drop all routes that are invalid? Thanks, Steve

5 4

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
by Jared Brown 28 Oct '21

28 Oct '21

Not to be outdone, British Telecom joins the cephalopod games: “Every Tbps (terabit-per-second) of data consumed over and above current levels costs about £50m,” says Marc Allera, the chief executive of BT’s consumer division. “In the last year alone we’ve seen 4Tbps of extra usage and the cost to keep up with that growth is huge.” “When the rules were created 25 years ago I don’t think anyone would have envisioned four or five companies would be driving 80% of the traffic on the world’s internet. They aren’t making a contribution to the services they are being carried on; that doesn’t feel right.” “A lot of the principles of net neutrality are incredibly valuable, we are not trying to stop or marginalise players but there has to be more effective coordination of demand than there is today” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/10/squid-games-success-reopen… For reference British Telecom has about 10 million broadband subscribers, so apparently those £200m capacity upgrades are stinging. All in all, this raises an interesting question. Is British Telecom running their networks so hot, that just keeping the lights on requires capacity upgrades or are they just looking for freebies? - Jared

7 11

NANOG 83 Kicks-Off Monday + MORE
by Nanog News 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

*NANOG 83 Kicks-Off on Monday * Register now to Connect Virtually +/or In-Person! *Connecting with us virtually for NANOG 83? * *WHERE TO WATCH:* 👉 Go to nanog.org/nanog83 to watch incredible presentations by industry leaders, participate in real-time Q + A sessions, networking events, expo, games + more! The hybrid conference will kick off next Monday, Nov. 1 - 3. Full details are available for upcoming talks and keynote presentations on the agenda. NANOG 83 will be available virtually +/or in-person in Minneapolis, MN. *VIEW AGENDA <https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-83/agenda/>* *VIDEO - Check out our New Web Series! * "Internet Innovators" ft. the Stories of Internet Legends The web series "Internet Innovators" <https://nanog.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4d708401d0e69d9dc73d1c204&…> <https://nanog.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4d708401d0e69d9dc73d1c204&…> explores the heart behind the brightest + boldest tech minds of our time. Watch every last Wed. of the month, as we release a new episode sharing the stories of men + women to who we credit our greatest achievements in Internet history. WATCH NOW: Ep.1 + 2, with Ep.1 + 2, with legendary Internet pioneers Vint Cerf <https://nanog.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4d708401d0e69d9dc73d1c204&…> + Geoff Huston. <https://nanog.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4d708401d0e69d9dc73d1c204&…> Check out the <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nip6nQeLhc4>teaser <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nip6nQeLhc4> of our upcoming interview with Scott Bradner. Bradner has been involved with the design, operation, and use of data networks at Harvard University since the early days of the ARPANET. *WATCH this teaser of Ep.3:* Bradner tells NANOG story producer, Elizabeth Drolet, he knew the Internet was exploding when his mom started using it. 👉 Ep. 3 will be released Wednesday, Nov. 24. *VIEW TEASER <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nip6nQeLhc4>* *Don't Miss: Women in Tech * Opportunity for Networking + Finding Mentors *Don't miss an opportunity to meet incredible women in tech.* Perfect for any female engineers looking for mentors. The Women in Technology luncheon will take place on Tues. Nov. 2nd from noon - 1 pm CDT in the Boundary Waters D room. *JOIN ZOOM MEETING* https://nanog.zoom.us/j/88978845443?pwd=dGtpZ3hxTVh6UmVSZHk3YWxZUjNZUT09 Meeting ID: 889 7884 5443 Passcode: 383671 One tap mobile +13126266799,,88978845443# US (Chicago) +16468769923,,88978845443# US (New York) *VIEW AGENDA * <https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-83/agenda/>

1 0

FORT monitoring/visibility
by Randy Bush 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

i run a FORT RPKI relying party instance. i am looking for some visibility into its operation. is it up: both ways, fetching and serving routers? from what CAs has it pulled, how recently and frequently with what success? what routers is it serving with rpki-rtr 323? blah blah blah my old DRL RP instances produce MRTG graphs etc of the CA fetching side, though nothing on the rpki-rtr side. randy --- https://seclists.org/nanog/2021/Jun/259 and ggm's excellent decoding thereof, https://blog.apnic.net/2021/07/15/some-handy-roa-advice-from-randy-bush/

5 4

ROA mirror to IRR?
by Shawn 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

Curious if any IRR databases are mirroring/importing ROA data - creating route|6 objects from ROA? LACNIC requires a route object to be created when creating a ROA. APNIC you create a route object, then may generate a ROA during that process. Other RIR's, curious if anything tries to bring the two together? Applicable for networks that only use IRR data (do not yet validate RPKI), they could benefit. IRR questions: How do most large networks maintain (automate) their IRR records? Is it standard practice to accept more specifics (append IPv4 "le /24" and IPv6 "le /48")? Or is it expected to have one IRR route per BGP announcement?

6 5

question about enabling RPKI using Hosted mode
by Edvinas Kairys 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

Hello, We're thinking of enabling BGP ROA, because more and more ISPs are using strict RPKI mode. Does enabling Hosted Mode (where it doesn't requires any additional configuration on client end) on RPKI could for some reason could cause a traffic loss ? The only disasterious scenario i could think of, is if we would enable ROA with incorrect sub prefixes, maximum prefix length. Am i Right ? Thanks

3 4

General Survey about DNSSEC, DMARC and RPKI <by November 5th>
by Akira Shibuya 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

Dear nanog members, We hope this message finds you safe and well. Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) is conducting a survey about the situation of the implementation of security technologies. The Internet is spreading in a coordinated manner thanks to its openness and autonomous, distributed and cooperative architecture, On the other hand, security technologies (DNSSEC, mail security such as DMARC, routing security such as RPKI), which need to be tackled in a coordinated manner, have been slow to spread in Japan. We would like to know the situation and efforts made in your country/economy. We will be grateful if you could respond to the questionnaire below by November 5th. https://forms.gle/7s6s2oWmpTtPNecLA If you have any questions, please let us know by sending an email to arch-info(a)nic.ad.jp. Sorry for bother you but thank you for your cooperation. ----- Akira Shibuya (on behalf of JPNIC secretariat)

1 0

re:
by Miles Fidelman 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

*Mel Beckman*mel at beckman.org <mailto:nanog%40nanog.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Network%20visibility&In-Reply-To=%3C3F9A10AF-090C-410A-96BC-CEF1B0371B3C%40beckman.org%3E> wrote: > Mark, > > Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the “IMP”) and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' email addresses, and routing had to be specified in advance within each NCP message. > This is just so completely wrong as to be ludicrous. First of all, the IMP was the box. Computers connected using the protocols specified in BBN Report 1822 (https://walden-family.com/impcode/BBN1822_Jan1976.pdf) NCP was alternately referred to as the Network Control PROGRAM and the Network Control Protocol. It essentially played the role of TCP, managing pairs of simplex connections. Routing was completely dynamic - that was the whole point of the IMP software. And routing did NOT require email addresses - those operated much further up the protocol stack. Perhaps you're confusing this with UUCP mail addressing ("bang" paths). Or possibly BITNET or FidoNet - which I believe also were source routed (but memory fails on that. re. > Even so, the Internet as a platform open to anyone didn’t start until 1992. I know you joined late, in 1999, so you probably missed out on this history. :) You know, there are people on this list who were back there in 1969, and actually wrote some of that code - so you might want to stop spouting nonsense. (Not me, I was a user, starting in 1971, didn't get to BBN until 1985 - when we were still dealing with stragglers who didn't quite manage to cutover to TCP/IP on the Flag Day.) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown

8 9

Guam Private Line
by Robert DeVita 26 Oct '21

26 Oct '21

Any recommendations for Private Line service into Guam from the US? 2 gigs? Thanks Rob [photo] [cid:image002.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] Robert DeVita CEO & Founder [cid:image003.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/mejeticks> [cid:image004.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20]<http://twitter.com/mejeticks> [cid:image005.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] 469-581-2160<tel:469-581-2160> [cid:image006.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] 469-441-8864<tel:469-441-8864> [cid:image007.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] radevita(a)mejeticks.com<mailto:radevita@mejeticks.com> [cid:image008.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] www.mejeticks.com<http://mejeticks.com/> [cid:image009.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] 3100 Carlisle St, 16-113, Dallas TX 75204

1 0