- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Free service offer by Cogent
by David Hubbard 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

From: Jeffrey Sharpe > > Hello, > > I was just wondering if anyone has taken Cogent up on the > offer for the Free year of service? Is it working good? > Is it truly free? What is the catch? Or is it a publicity > stunt by Cogent? > > Anyone? > I've got links to both providers; not sure if you'd consider it a catch but I'd recommend getting the list of supported BGP communities from Cogent before committing to them, you might find you can't do things you're used to being able to. David

1 0

Cogent depeering update
by Chris Stone 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

***************************************************************************** ** Cogent Network Status Report Last Updated Fri Oct 7 15:45:00 2005 ** ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** Network Status: Normal DNS Servers Status: Normal Dialup/IPASS Status: Normal Mail Servers Status: Normal Webservers Status: Normal Cogent Network Status/DNS Server Status Description: Date: 10/07/2005 Update (3:40pm edt): Level 3 has restored some of their peering sessions with Cogent at this time. We do not know if this is a temporary or a permanent change, and will continue to negotiate with Level 3 to resolve all the issues they have with Cogent.

1 0

Free service offer by Cogent
by Jeffrey Sharpe 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

Hello, I was just wondering if anyone has taken Cogent up on the offer for the Free year of service? Is it working good? Is it truly free? What is the catch? Or is it a publicity stunt by Cogent? Anyone? Thanks, ------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey Sharpe CyberLynk Helpdesk and Support 414.858.9335 or 800.942.8022 Cell: 262.488.0242 JSharpe(a)cyberlynk.net ------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
by Schliesser, Benson 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

Paul Vixie wrote: > bensons(a)savvis.net ("Schliesser, Benson") writes: > >> Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit: >> the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes? >> >> If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by >> their respective (different) service providers (all other issues being >> equal) is one provider in a better position than the other? > > If it's still common for one to be billed only for "highest of in vs. out" > then there's no way to compare the benefits since there's always a "shadow" > direction and it won't be symmetric among flow endpoints. Thank you, Paul. I'd be interested in your feedback on these thoughts of mine below. I do believe it is typical, perhaps with some variance but usually amounting to the same thing, that end-users are billed for the "highest of in vs. out" traffic, roughly the capacity they are provisioned. Thus if I may, I'll build on this to make a more concrete statement: each party in a peering relationship receives equal value for traffic exchanged. (traffic volume at the SFI translates into revenue from end-users) Things aren't so simple in reality, though: you have to look at the element left out of my statement above, the "cost" of traffic exchanged. If one peer terminates more traffic than it originates, and the originating peer is performing "hot-potato" routing, then the terminating peer typically has a higher cost burden as it has to transport the traffic the greater distance. However the opposite holds true if the originating peer is performing "cold-potato" routing. Thus, such things exist as traffic in/out ratios between peers. But this is a blunt tool which seems to help enforce the exclusivity of the Tier-1 club, and actually acts as a barrier to competition. That is, anybody with a different traffic pattern (i.e., because of a different business model) will be excluded from the club despite the fact that they bring equal value in the form of traffic volume to the relationship. And club-outsiders are subject to increased relative operating costs (cost of revenue) compared to club-insiders. So what is the solution? "Warm-potato" routing seems possible technically, providing an approximation of cost-burden fairness. Is the benefit worth the complexity to manage in practice? And clearly, I'm not advocating endless open peering--the revenue element of the equation (customers) must exist. So what is the best way to determine the criteria by which a network is determined to be a "peer"? Cheers, -Benson --- Benson Schliesser (email) mailto:bensons@savvis.net I barely understand my own thoughts, much worse those of my betters. Thus, the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer. Ponder them at your own risk.

2 1

Re: Regulatory pros and cons
by J. Oquendo 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Henry Linneweh wrote: > > Reading some of this is rather disturbing, like if we > live in some kind of control freak society, where > every comment is we are trying to control terrorism > so we must eliminate everyones right of expression and > distort every means of communication including the > internet. Problem is, everyone's right of expression is distorted to everyone elses to some degree. Your opinion is your opinion no matter how right or wrong. You'll always have agreements and disagreements. This has always followed suit throughout ages whether it is/was a religious view, political view, personal view, etc. That's just life. This society including all countries has been a control freakish society for some time now. (ECHELON) > I disagree that companies should be harmed because of > elements within a given state of these United States > should have any power to regulate what any corporation > like google does or does not do, just because they > lack any talent to compete at all and I support now > more than ever this effort... Disagree. Some corporations should have checks and balances just like individuals do. You say you disagree now but what happens if say Google become the only ISP in town, the only search engine in town the only whatever in town, then down the line they decided to create an inflated (non regulated) price on their services. You surely would be crying foul. Anyone would. Sort of like companies bound to Microsoft because of the costs associated with revamping infrastructures. Now you have tons of DDoS zombies, warez warehouses, trojan factories, worm heavens thanks to MS' lackadaisical attitude toward security. Funny thing happened on the phone with an MS salesgoon... me: "I'd like to know about MS Exchange since my boss wants it. I have X_amount of employees." him: "Well you would pay X_amount of money but you could only use X_amount of space on your exchange server" Me thinking to myself... "I'm paying X_amount of money for X_amount of people and MS is telling me how much space I could use on my own hard drives... No matter how many "seats" I buy..." Screw MS... And yes I had a hardy laugh as did the salesgoon who was trying to extort (yes extort) me on what I can use on my systems. Anyhow I thought it was funny and laughed at him on speakerphone... Corporations need checks and balances just like people do. Bottom line. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x97B43D89 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey

1 0

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Table Analysis 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 08 Oct, 2005 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 171237 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 97682 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 82982 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 20634 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17937 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8496 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2697 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 75 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.5 Max AS path length visible: 25 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 21 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 12 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1430221696 Equivalent to 85 /8s, 63 /16s and 115 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 38.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 58.1 Percentage of available address space allocated: 66.4 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81512 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 35553 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 15686 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 33366 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 16621 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2379 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 697 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 360 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 17 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 202231424 Equivalent to 12 /8s, 13 /16s and 206 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 75.0 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 124/7, 126/8, 202/7, 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 90978 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 55344 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 71064 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 26396 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10245 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3777 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 959 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 17 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 271633664 Equivalent to 16 /8s, 48 /16s and 205 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 67.5 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 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/6, 68/7, 70/6, 74/7, 76/8, 198/7, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 33262 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 22601 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 30275 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 20274 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 7163 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3776 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1197 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.1 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 17 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 219641920 Equivalent to 13 /8s, 23 /16s and 120 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 65.5 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 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 80/5, 88/6, 188/8, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 9645 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3229 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 7986 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 4709 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 641 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 203 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 122 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 22127616 Equivalent to 1 /8s, 81 /16s and 164 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 33.0 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 189/8, 190/8, 200/7 AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 1773 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 822 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1087 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 810 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 141 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 43 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 19 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 12 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 2822912 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 43 /16s and 19 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 8.4 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 196/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4134 992 6172 209 CHINANET-BACKBONE 9583 803 77 12 Sify Limited 1221 754 1330 515 Telstra Pty Ltd 4755 715 259 66 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 4766 618 3927 290 Korea Telecom (KIX) 7545 510 108 72 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 17676 470 6819 100 Softbank BB Corp. 9443 392 87 78 Primus Telecommunications 9498 346 211 56 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 2907 338 1763 315 SINET Japan 17488 336 20 9 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 9929 330 224 46 China Netcom Corp. 17557 328 23 160 Pakistan Telecom 4802 319 70 160 Wantree Development 7474 319 257 221 SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 18302 292 109 162 SK Global co., Ltd 9837 273 79 174 Powertel Ltd 17974 272 65 14 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 18101 261 68 18 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet 9800 253 394 66 CHINA UNICOM ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7018 1518 6361 989 AT&T WorldNet Services 4323 1180 705 228 Time Warner Telecom 721 1076 21938 309 DLA Systems Automation Center 174 1059 5848 993 Cogent Communications 701 997 8105 836 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 6197 946 399 489 BellSouth Network Solutions, 2386 927 513 688 AT&T Data Communications Serv 1239 860 2851 604 Sprint 18566 858 240 7 Covad Communications 209 632 3569 499 Qwest 20115 625 510 329 Charter Communications 3602 561 131 109 Sprint Canada, Inc. 3356 548 10656 422 Level 3 Communications, LLC 3561 546 2410 418 Savvis 22773 544 1356 31 Cox Communications, Inc. 5668 477 147 24 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 6198 475 417 230 BellSouth Network Solutions, 19262 472 1419 123 Verizon Global Networks 7132 468 5042 399 SBC Internet Services 852 436 1092 383 Telus Advanced Communications RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 702 609 1993 482 UUNET - Commercial IP service 3301 303 1081 289 TeliaNet Sweden 3320 286 3230 239 Deutsche Telekom AG 8220 268 475 263 COLT Telecommunications 8708 245 274 223 Romania Data Systems S.A. 680 244 2040 240 DFN-IP service G-WiN 3246 226 474 219 Song Networks 1257 194 712 172 SWIPnet Swedish IP Network 6746 189 50 164 Dynamic Network Technologies, 5515 181 777 127 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 3269 178 1638 70 TELECOM ITALIA 786 174 1795 174 The JANET IP Service 5400 169 289 142 BT Ignite European Backbone 8866 160 37 9 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 6830 158 669 33 UPC Distribution Services 3300 156 185 91 AUCS Communications Services 25186 152 227 107 France Telecom Transpac's Tra 3215 140 1205 82 France Telecom Transpac 24863 139 37 6 LINKdotNET AS number 1273 137 177 95 Cable & Wireless Deutschland LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 400 650 170 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 16814 297 18 7 NSS, S.A. 11172 278 85 65 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 11664 206 22 24 Keytech SA 19632 195 14 5 Metropolis Intercom S.A. 6147 190 116 23 Telefonica Del Peru 22047 170 128 7 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 14117 155 10 5 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 7303 145 68 17 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 11556 132 64 2 Cable-Wireless Panama 6505 121 89 85 Global One Communicaoes Ltda 10481 121 48 8 Prima S.A. 19169 121 8 25 Telconet 13999 119 52 9 Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. 6503 113 148 74 AVANTEL, S.A. 18822 112 7 13 TELEFONICA MANQUEHUE 21826 107 13 16 INTERCABLE 5639 103 12 9 Telecommunications Services o 11311 99 8 10 Sinectis S.A. 23216 88 23 12 RAMtelecom Telecomunicaciones AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3741 268 708 226 The Internet Solution 5536 123 8 12 Internet Egypt Network 8452 115 40 8 TEDATA 2018 95 295 86 Tertiary Education Network 15475 83 84 4 Nile Online 2905 79 211 71 The Internetworking Company o 6713 71 71 10 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 20928 61 16 2 Noor Advanced Technologies AS 24835 58 34 7 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 5713 38 149 33 Telkom SA Ltd 12455 35 6 3 Jambonet Autonomous system 15706 31 8 3 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 33774 29 3 19 AS Number for Telecom Algeria 8524 24 1 4 AUCEGYPT Autonomous System 16637 23 10 20 Johnnic e-Ventures 10798 22 1 13 Standard Bank of South Africa 23889 21 5 9 MAURITIUS TELECOM 21280 20 4 4 Swift Global Kenya Ltd.Is an 12258 17 3 11 Vodacom Internet Company 15808 17 2 2 Communication Solutions Ltd i Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4323 1180 952 Time Warner Telecom 18566 858 851 Covad Communications 9583 803 791 Sify Limited 4134 992 783 CHINANET-BACKBONE 721 1076 767 DLA Systems Automation Center 4755 715 649 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 22773 544 513 Cox Communications, Inc. 6197 946 457 BellSouth Network Solutions, 5668 477 453 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 3602 561 452 Sprint Canada, Inc. 7545 510 438 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 17676 470 370 Softbank BB Corp. 6467 401 353 E.Spire Communications, Inc. 19262 472 349 Verizon Global Networks 11492 341 332 Cable One 4766 618 328 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17488 336 327 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 15270 346 318 PaeTec.net -a division of Pae 9443 392 314 Primus Telecommunications 13609 332 302 Choice One Communications Inc List of Unregistered ASNs (Global) ---------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65003 PRIVATE 57.250.244.0/24 13879 SITA-EQUANT 64900 PRIVATE 64.116.137.0/24 17399 Comsat Venezuela, CO 65506 PRIVATE 64.151.117.0/24 26228 ServePath, LLC 64826 PRIVATE 64.200.250.0/23 7911 Williams Communicati 64826 PRIVATE 64.200.255.0/24 7911 Williams Communicati 65205 PRIVATE 152.163.5.0/24 2056 America Online 64512 PRIVATE 170.51.242.0/24 19037 CTI Compania de Tele 65111 PRIVATE 194.165.131.0/24 8376 GO-JOR Autonomous Sy 65004 PRIVATE 200.0.113.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.0.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.1.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.2.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.3.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.4.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.5.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.6.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 64900 PRIVATE 200.85.68.0/24 17399 Comsat Venezuela, CO 24413 UNALLOCATED 202.46.32.0/19 17623 China Netcom Corp. 65005 PRIVATE 203.200.197.0/24 4755 Videsh Sanchar Nigam 65103 PRIVATE 216.53.126.0/23 7270 Net2Phone Corp. 65500 PRIVATE 216.216.217.0/24 19029 New Edge Networks Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 132.0.0.0/10 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 137.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 158.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 192.43.230.0/24 7575 Australian Academic and Rease 192.44.0.0/24 5501 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft 192.44.0.0/19 702 UUNET - Commercial IP service 192.70.164.0/24 25689 National Research Council of 192.84.205.0/24 719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.119.135.0/24 270 NASA 192.135.50.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 192.172.0.0/19 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 192.200.100.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:17 /9:5 /10:8 /11:17 /12:80 /13:180 /14:327 /15:641 /16:8533 /17:2820 /18:4733 /19:10810 /20:11872 /21:9869 /22:13224 /23:14192 /24:93008 /25:324 /26:281 /27:177 /28:36 /29:11 /30:38 /31:3 /32:31 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 842 858 Covad Communications 6197 773 946 BellSouth Network Solutions, 7018 738 1518 AT&T WorldNet Services 2386 639 927 AT&T Data Communications Serv 9583 626 803 Sify Limited 4323 563 1180 Time Warner Telecom 4766 426 618 Korea Telecom (KIX) 702 385 609 UUNET - Commercial IP service 5668 382 477 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 1239 368 860 Sprint 19916 363 369 OLM LLC 6198 348 475 BellSouth Network Solutions, 11492 333 341 Cable One 7011 323 380 Citizens Utilities 6517 317 343 Yipes Communications, Inc. 15270 316 346 PaeTec.net -a division of Pae 13609 289 332 Choice One Communications Inc 701 284 997 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 18302 277 292 SK Global co., Ltd 22773 275 544 Cox Communications, Inc. Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:3 8:25 12:1604 13:1 15:10 16:3 17:3 18:3 20:27 24:560 30:3 32:67 38:162 40:54 44:3 47:2 52:4 55:1 56:3 57:39 58:93 59:69 60:139 61:755 62:762 63:1889 64:2905 65:2081 66:2963 67:628 68:657 69:1239 70:207 71:27 72:398 80:633 81:581 82:494 83:304 84:272 85:336 86:129 87:59 125:11 128:161 129:168 130:96 131:296 132:34 133:1 134:146 135:43 136:160 137:66 138:165 139:62 140:460 141:141 142:148 143:142 144:219 145:34 146:301 147:112 148:277 149:188 150:108 151:73 152:113 153:93 154:5 155:139 156:80 157:112 158:161 159:172 160:87 161:75 162:236 163:146 164:191 165:175 166:152 167:258 168:441 169:143 170:306 171:8 190:1 192:5728 193:3313 194:2414 195:1564 196:677 198:3887 199:3229 200:4228 201:353 202:6115 203:6456 204:3816 205:2046 206:2444 207:2853 208:2030 209:3406 210:1682 211:817 212:1205 213:1382 214:303 215:39 216:3712 217:1139 218:220 219:131 220:505 221:286 222:125 End of report

1 0

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
by Schliesser, Benson 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

> What is "Internet"? Let's channel Seth Breidbart briefly and call it > the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric > closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP packet from". It > should be clear that the nature and extent of this network depends > very much on the perspective of the connected device from which is it > measured. At last, a definition we can all agree on! ;) Honestly this might be closest to the truth, but it's not quite the perception that the marauding forces of marketing have encouraged over the previous 10 years. Rather, the market which exists to support ISPs tends not to include people who understand the nature of the network, and its instability. Sadly, for many of the market constituents the "Internet" equates to the "Web"; for some of them it equates to a platform to support their applications; for very few of them does it equate to a unique perspective into a subset of possible IP relationships. As I said, this definition is closest to the reality today, but not even everybody on this knowledgeable mailing list feels happy with buying such a service, no less so the end-users at large. > Do people in Spain complain that they can't call numbers starting > with +350, and insist on getting money back from their monthly bill? > Or do they accept that their government has an ongoing dispute with > the UK over whether Gibraltar is in fact part of Spain? Good counter-example. Instead of trying to compare how this example of political dispute and the resulting customer satisfaction or frustration is similar to the Cogent-Level(3) situation, I'll simply acknowledge that my analogy, like most, is imperfect. I still hold to my fundamental point, however. The market has evolved to expect more than "Internet as an research experiment/hobbyist toy", and now expects the "Internet" to be a component of their critical infrastructure. Service providers that don't understand this, in addition to having unsatisfied customers, may perhaps incur outside intervention. Would that ultimately be so bad for end-users? Cheers, -Benson --- Benson Schliesser (email) mailto:bensons@savvis.net I barely understand my own thoughts, much worse those of my betters. Thus, the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer. Ponder them at your own risk.

1 0

Fw: Nuclear survivability (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

> While I realize that the "nuke survivable" thing is probably an old > wives tale, it seems ridiculous that "the Internet" can't adjust by > routing any packets that used to go directly from Cogent to Level 3 > though some 3rd (and) 4th (and) 5th set of providers that are connected > in some fashion to both... It's not a myth. If the Internet were running RIP instead of BGP that is likely what would happen. Of course, there are a few downsides to running RIP on the open Internet as well... Today's Internet is a few generations beyond what Paul Baran originally conceived and the policy and politics of business does tend to gum up the works a bit now that there is no serious threat of global nuclear war. --Michael Dillon

6 6

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
by btbowman＠comcast.net 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

*Leo Bicknell [bicknell(a)ufp.org] wrote: >If you don't have enable on a router, and you've never negotiated peering with a transit free ISP then you're not qualified to comment. >You really don't understand what's going on here, and it's not, I repeat, not a technical problem. There is nothing wrong with the technology, architecture, or anything else. There is something wrong with the business >model of one, or both of these companies. Well, I disagree. I have no clue. I am not an ISP I do, however, have enable. We do buy transit There are lots of folks that have replied to this thread. A number of them have a lot of "clue". Some, like me, don't. If this list didn't have such lively discussions I would not have the education about how the "Internet" works that this list has given me. If only people with "clue" commented on things this would be a dull place indeed. Might just as well be a closed list. For this, I thank all of you that have contributed.

1 0

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
by Silver Tiger 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

Benson Schliesser wrote: >Michael Dillon wrote: >> P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic >.> exchange was paid for and there was no settlement >> free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid >> full transit and paid partial transit on the menu? >Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit: >the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes? >If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by >their respective (different) service providers (all other issues being >equal) is one provider in a better position than the other? >Cheers, >-Benson Having enable on a router, yet not having experience with peering in any capacity I was wondering if this analogy holds water. Please excuse the simple model, as I want to understand what other factors may be involved (aside from contractual nuances) Provider A has host/service/user traffic that we will call "Blue Bricks" that need to be moved outside their network. Provider B has host/service/user traffic that we will call "Red Bricks" that need to be moved outside their network.. Both providers decide to meet at the corner and exchange 1 brick each on a regular basis let's say for 1000 cycles both providers meet and exchange blocks successfully. for the next 200 cycles Provider A brings his expected "blue brick" to the corner, yet provider B brings two "red bricks". While that was not expected .. it is acceptable in the short term. then as time goes by Provider B begins to bring additional blocks, yet seems not to notice the standard 1 block that provider A is bringing. While fairly simple, this model explains that the disproportion of "blocks", or traffic as it were, could be a cause of distress. While I hear talk of "Price compression" and "lining pockets" respectively from those who have chosen their position, based on what I've read here and in other places, depeering is a non aggressive yet detrimental way to assert the concerns of a peering provider who feels that the relationship has become inequitable. I can see how the costs of arranging peering and maintaining it can be quite sizable on both sides, but what other factors could cause this type of depeering. Perhaps my view is over simplified, but I don't see this as a black and white "bad guy" scenario. As previous posts have (whether accurately or not) stated, Cogent was notified in advance of Level 3's intentions and both companies had to know that they were shooting themselves in the foot by playing this ever frustrating game of "chicken". I welcome flames/education as this can't be as much of a dichotomy as it seems to be ST

4 3