- Test - lists.nanog.org

Peering BOF IV Meeting Notes
by William B. Norton 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

Hi all - Here are my notes from the Peering BOF IV - NANOG 23 ( http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/norton.html ) We started at 7:30 PM Monday evening with the intention of pulling the peering community together through introductions. We had about 20 Peering Coordinators step up to the mike, introduce themselves, say a word or two about their network, peering policy and what they are looking for in a peer network. This allowed the audience to put a face to a name for conversations afterwards. Another 10 that didn't pre-register for this stepped up and chimed in as well. From about 8:30 til almost 10PM the community stuck around to talk and I'm told that *dozens* of peering sessions (Yahoo!, Akamai, Carrier1, SBC, etc.) will be set up as a result. Highly successful NANOG for this segment of the population. Several folks asked for a list of those who stood up to talk about their peering policy, and here is what I have: BBC Internet Simon Lockhart simonl(a)rd.bbc.co.uk Digital Island Mitchell Rose mrose(a)digisle.net DoubleClick Alex Ng ngluck(a)bb.directv.com TELUS Clinton Work Clinton.Work(a)telus.com France Telecom/Open Transit Vincent Gillet vgi(a)utopia.opentransit.net Globix Steven J. Schecter sjs(a)globix.net WINFirst Hansel Lee Hansel.Lee(a)corp.winfirst.com 4CNet Brian Court bac(a)csu.net Akamai Rachel Warren rachel(a)plur.net / Patrick Gilmore patrick(a)ianai.net Hostcentric Charlene Wang Charlene.Wang(a)hostcentric.com Japan Telecom Seiji Kuroda kuroda(a)gw.odn.ad.jp Adelphia Joe Klein jtk(a)adelphiacom.net Earthlink Jeb Linton/Josh Fleishman Yahoo! Jeffrey Papen jpapen(a)yahoo-inc.com SBC Ren Nowlin ln1875(a)sbc.com Carrier1 Eric Troyer eric.troyer(a)carrier1.com ESNet Joe Metzger metzger(a)es.net Velocita Brian Dickson brian.dickson(a)velocita.com I want to thank these folks for volunteering to share their info and hopefully this led to some sessions coming up. <a bunch of folks came up to the mike but I don't remember the names except for Paul Vixie. I remember there were people in this group that included e-bay, Microsoft, Comcast.> Speaking of which, if Peering Coordinators would like to participate in the Peering Contact Database and receive a copy once a month or so of the Peering Contact Database, send e-mail to wbn(a)wbnorton.org and I'll return the template to fill out. So far we have about 150 Peering Coordinators listed. Several suggestions were made for the next time: - Include a "Peering Contracts Required" icon and - "Make it easy for folks to step up later along with Icons" and - "Include e-mail addresses" We're going to try and factor in these suggestions for the Peering Personals at the next Gigabit Peering Forum which is held Dec 3rd in San Jose. If you are a Peering Coordinator and would like an invite to this let me know. For those who could not attend due to travel restrictions or whatever I'd be happy to e-mail the slides with the peering icons and ISP names etc. Hope this helped - Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison Equinix wbn(a)equinix.com 650.315.8635

1 0

Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?
by Paul Vixie 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

> I was using legitimate in the sense of 'e-mail that the receiver > wanted to receive'. ... So this now boils down to "if the sender and receiver of a packet/session/etc are both interested in having it take place, then noone in the middle shall be allowed to deliberately prevent this from occuring." What would you mean by "deliberate" in this case? If "e-mail between consenting adults" was blocked because some NOC person was trying to stop a DDoS attack that happened to use the same source or destination address as the "consenting" e-mail was coming from or going to? Should that be illegal? If not, then why wouldn't a mailserver operator trying to block spam be allowed to do the same thing? > I also think it's very important to get past the 'who pays' argument. > It's a good argument from a technology point of view, or from the > individual's point of view, but it doesn't work in the abstract. On the contrary this argument is at its best in the abstract. > Worst case is someone will develop and popularize (or legislate) a > settlement system where the sender can pay for the entire transaction. A law allowing someone to make micropayments to the telco I get my T1 from, and to the vendor I buy replacement drives for my RAID box from, and so on, and which further _required_ me to have my costs offset in this manner, is beyond rational consideration and I refuse to even discuss it. Requiring that my inbox have a determinate bank account attached to it so that these micropayments can be made to me without any explicit contract between myself and potential senders is on the borderline of irrationality: we could discuss it but I don't think we'd get anywhere in finite time. This leaves the requirement that I enter into an agreement before costs are shifted in my direction. That's where we are right now. And that's why the "who pays" argument is at its _best_ in the abstract.

4 3

the group
by Brian Whalen 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

Any chance of there being a newsgroup format made available, so I can skip past all the philosophy, religion, politics and other non NOG messages? Brian "Sonic" Whalen Success = Preparation + Opportunity

6 5

Thursday Hawaii telephone mishap
by Sean Donelan 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Oct/26/ln/ln01a.html A Verizon telephone worker accidentally cut a fiber cable in Kalihi yesterday, setting off a chain reaction that resulted in the most widespread phone failure in the Islands in recent years.

7 9

Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?
by Paul Vixie 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

> > That way lies madness. Senders have no such rights, and the > > determination of a message's legitimacy lies with recipients (and > > perhaps infrastructure owners) NOT senders. > > How is the recipient of a message that has been blocked before he sees it to > decide whether it was legitimate? Why would you care, unless you are the receiver? If I decide that all ICMP traffic from IP addresses that have an odd number of "1" bits in it is not legitimate and shall not be allowed to reach my web server, then that seems to be a matter between me and my psychotherapist. I'm not sure why it would matter to anyone else, including rebuffed senders or NANOG's philosophers. What this all begs for is a reference standard for "presumed legitimacy" so that senders can know without waiting for complaints nor seeking explicit permission, just what kind of traffic they ought or ought not send. As I said in another note here, such a standard would have to be written in terms of assertions rather than negations. A peering or transit agreement is quite explicit since the parties and their specific concerns are known: it can therefore be of the form "All is permitted except X, Y, and Z." Presumptive traffic legitimacy or "implicit welcome" is between unspecified parties who can by definition have no specific concerns and so the standard must take the form "All is prohibited, except A, B, and C."

2 1

Re: the group
by Paul Vixie 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

> I wouldn't consider gatewaying nanog into usenet land (even one way) to be > the world most constructive exercise... I do. I read NANOG in a private local newsgroup. It only works one-way -- to post, I have to send mail to nanog(a)merit.edu and so my address has to be entered on the nanog-post list. KILL files are wonderful. /etc/aliases says: local-mail-net-nanog: |"/news/local/mailpost -d local local.mail.net.nanog" i've put a copy of "mailpost" at http://www.vix.com/~vixie/mailpost.txt. it's really a perl script, 324 lines long, written by me back in 1992 or so.

5 4

Re: the group
by Paul Vixie 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

> You and others here probably already know this trick, but you might be able > to get automatic echoes if you use the list address as the moderator of the > newsgroup, such that replies are forwarded to the moderator address rather > than being posted. Might also need to massage the outbound message so that it > strips off unwanted NNTP headers. A bidirectional mail/news gateway is lots harder than what I use for NANOG. In addition to the above concerns, there's a need for the "mail side" to keep its own message-id history for round-the-horn duplicate suppression. This is how the namedroppers(a)ops.ietf.org <=> comp.protocols.dns.std gateway works, for example. (The news -> mail direction is moderated, first by ISC and then by Randy as are all postings to namedroppers.) However, for my private NANOG newsgroup I prefer that followups just silently die. Any local user of my nnrp server who can't figure out that they need to use e-mail to post to NANOG, probably ought not be posting to NANOG :-).

1 0

ATIS report SS7/CCS outages continue to increase
by Sean Donelan 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

According to ATIS's network reliability steering committee, the frequency of CCS (i.e. SS7) outage (40) and CO Power outage (26) over the last four quarters were the greatest of any four consecutive quarters. Based on a special review of CCS outages, procedural errors are the primary root cause. The number of facility outages (i.e. backhoes) has decreased. More details at http://www.atis.org/ATIS/NRSC/minutes.htm Similar information for the Internet does not exist.

1 0

H-ratio & Packing density
by Bill Manning 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

Looking for any data on the "packing density" of address delegations. This might also be phrased as "address utilization". Earlier, also informal, surveys had indicated an average of between 4-7% utilization. I would expect that current practice has been to encourge better packing (ref RFC 2050) on recent delegations. Private replies would be appreciated. -- --bill

1 0

Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt
by Paul Vixie 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

> > Intentions matter not at all. Only results of said traffic, the > > consequences of which are borne entirely by the receiver. If the > > receiver doesn't want it, the receiver should not have to receive it. > > This is not how things are done elsewhere, so I don't see why it would > have to be on the net. on the net, recipients pay for part of the transport of traffic to them. elsewhere, senders pay for all of the transport of traffic to them. that's why it has to be different on the net than elsewhere. > Also, how do you intend to inform everyone about > everyone else's wishes in this regard? that would be impractical, unscalable, and unnecessary. > > Unless you're willing to come out > > and state that being connected to the Internet is a de facto agreement to > > receive anything and everything somebody wishes to send you > > It is, "de facto". If you know that doing something has a certain result, > and you do it, you can't really be surprised that the result ensues. so if i have an IP address than i ought not be surprised when it's pingflooded? and if i have an e-mail inbox i ought not be surprised when it's spammed? elsewhere, this ideology is called "blame the victim", and is not respected.

1 0