- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: C&W Perring
by David Sinn 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

So which side is doing the pre-pending? Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 12.10.44.0/23 166.49.26.73 50 100 0 3561 174 174 174 174 4550 11937 i David -----Original Message----- From: Moe Allen [mailto:moe@vidnet.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:33 AM To: Nanog Subject: C&W Perring To all: I just got off the phone with Cable & Wireless. A 60 day continuation of peering with PSINET was reached last night. The peering is back up and we can now find PSINET DNS server again. More on this as I am made aware. Respectfully, Morris Allen President VidcomNet, Inc.

3 2

C&W Perring
by Moe Allen 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

To all: I just got off the phone with Cable & Wireless. A 60 day continuation of peering with PSINET was reached last night. The peering is back up and we can now find PSINET DNS server again. More on this as I am made aware. Respectfully, Morris Allen President VidcomNet, Inc.

2 1

RE: C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering
by Barrows, Jeff 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:14 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: C&W/PSI restore connectivity (peering?) Re: C&W Peering <snip> > I would be interested in hearing what folks who once worked as the > "peering coordinator" for a large ISP, and later worked as a smaller > ISP trying to negotiate from different sides of the table think. I > believe every major ISP has turned over their peering staff at least > once, and some multiple times. > > Do the views hold constant no matter where they are, or are they > flexible depending whether they are currently working at the big > ISP or at the startup ISP? An attempt to answer your question without inviting or inciting a debate or detailed discussion [mostly since I couldn't/wouldn't participate] in this forum about the specifics of Worldcom's peering policies or practices: Having been the one responsible for peering for all of Worldcom's IP networks, (including UUNET, ANS, Compuserve, Gridnet, and ~15 other large ASes around the globe that they operate) and having been the one who authored 99% of the most-recently released UUNET peering policy, and having left there to build [from scratch] a global IP backbone which will need direct connectivity to UUNET, I can give you my perspective from both sides of the table. My views on peering, and how an entity should position itself do indeed hold constant. Peering decisions are not technical decisions-- they are business decisions that have an economic impact. No matter what the original intentions were, the major IP networks out there today are all doing business to make money by selling connectivity. How they respond on issues such as peering plays a significant part on their bottom line, and they act accordingly in almost every case. Somewhere close to the heart of the problem is that there must be a line that separates the set of networks that you inter- connect with for free, [or for non-traditional customer pricing,] and the set of networks that you do not... and you'll never get a useful enough sized group of people [that is equally representative of the mix of interests out there] to agree on where that line should be drawn. In the meantime, organizations can draw that line wherever they choose. As this is true for UUNET, Sprint, Genuity, and C&W, it is also true for Aleron. We'll make decisions based on what is best for our customers, our network, and for our business. The position that Aleron will take is different than the position that UUNET will take, even though my views hold constant. Personally, I believe that someone will identify and leverage an opportunity based on all of the market pressures surrounding inter-provider peering, and we'll see a whole new mechanism or method for dealing with "non-customer" inter-network IP traffic exchange. Aleron certainly intends to make great progress in this space. Cheers, - jsb -- Jeff Barrows SVP, Global Networks Aleron Internet http://www.aleron.com +1 703 287 4224 Office

1 0

Re: C&W Peering
by Moe Allen 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

Sorry for the delay. Directly from C&W. We have a few Commercial Customers that are unable to connect now with their main office (Lan to Wan). Further investigation and opening a trouble ticket with C&W, produced this information. I generated a letter to peering.admin(a)cwusa.com Asking why and how were our customers going to get back to their main office (via back-haul through the Internet). The reply was less that creative. It will follow later today. Respectfully, Morris Allen VidcomNet, Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan P. Aufderheide To: Moe Allen Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:16 PM Subject: Re: C&W Peering Hi Moe, just out of curiosity, where did you come by this information? thanks, Jonathan P. Aufderheide Director, Global Interconnection Engineering Global Crossing 916.786.8765 jaufder(a)gblx.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Moe Allen To: Nanog Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: C&W Peering Affective this morning Cable & Wireless started de-peering with PSINET. More when I receive a reply from: peering.admin(a)cwusa.com Morris Allen VidcomNet, Inc.

1 0

Re: And then there were two
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

> Why can't you have more than two 'equals'? Seen Reservoir Dogs? I think it demonstrates the principle regards brandon

1 0

Hosting Failover Question
by James DeMong 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

I am looking for a Rule of Thumb on failover for hosting, mostly tcp(webserver), some udp (audio/video streaming) stuff. My thought is that 5 seconds to failover when a network element(switch/router/load balancer/FW) fails is reasonable. How many seconds is reasonable for fail over in such a situation? Thanks in advance. __ James DeMong Network Design Specialist TELUS Advanced Communications Phone: (403) 503-3718 Email: James.DeMong(a)telus.com

1 0

Re: Internet Traffic Discovery?
by Walter Prue 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

>Anybody else remember a recent thread arguing that QoS should be kept at >the edge for IP? Well Peter Lothburg (please excuse the spelling) at the last NANOG demonstrated this fact rather well when he showed the effects of congestion on latency for various high speed links. I think he started with T3 then higher and higher up to OC-192. The graphs showed latency low until the links were at progressively higher percentages of 100% full. For links at OC-12 you were looking at links that were well above 90% full before any detectable increase in latency occured. That made the point pretty clear to me. Walt

1 0

And then there were two
by Sean Donelan 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

If you accept the premise that "peer == equal" does that mean in the end there will be only two ISPs each with exactly 50% of the world's Internet because no one else will be an equal? I've never understood how the word "peer" mutated from its technical definition arising from its use in the BGP protocol to its use by marketing people. As far as I can tell, EGP (Exterior Gateway Protocol) originally used the term "neighbor." Berkeley used the berkelism "peer" in their software and RFC 911 documenting their experience, and the term stuck through EGP2, BGP1-4. If we still used the word "neighbor" would the phrase "Are you a neighbor?" have a different ring than "Are you a peer?" You can have lots of neighbors, even if you think you are superior to all of them.

2 1

RE: PSINet and C&W peering
by smd＠clock.org 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

| In my opinion, at every company there are people with visions "Just Say No". Sean.

1 0

RE: PSINet and C&W peering
by Smith, Marcellus 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

As the former Manager of Peering at internetMCI/C&W, I find this dispute with PSI very interesting. As mentioned in Mitchell Levinn's posting from yesterday: "C&W and PSINet upgraded circuits used for peering between the two networks earlier this year. C&W's recent action seems inconsistent with the strategy that led to these upgrades." This is the heart of the problem. When I left C&W in 2/00, I had created a plan to upgrade all of C&W's current peering from mostly DS3's to OC3's and OC12's and also increase the density of that peering. For example, if we were using 4 cities say, SF, Chicago, DC, NY, we would then add in Seattle, LA, Dallas, Atlanta, Denver and so on. Other parts of that plan included upgrading connection to the MAE's, AADS and installing peering routers at both the PAIX and Equinix facilities. When I walked out of the door, this plan was being executed. Somewhere down the line, it was derailed. In my opinion, at every company there are people with visions, once they leave even though it may take some time, that vision becomes clouded or it may even leave with that visionary. ------------------------ Marcellus Smith Director - Internetworking Strategies Office 703-287-4224 Cell 703-395-4275 marcellus(a)aleron.com www.aleron.com -----Original Message----- From: Mitchell Levinn [mailto:levinn@psi.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:35 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: levinn(a)psi.com Subject: PSINet and C&W peering C&W did indeed shutdown their peering connections to PSINet this weekend. While there are many potential explanations for their actions, I have no visibility into their decision process. I am disappointed with their decision to disconnect. PSINet continues to seek a resolution with C&W to restore normal connectivity in order to avoid further negative impact to both companies and the Internet. Their decision is hard to understand based on the following: - C&W and PSINet upgraded circuits used for peering between the two networks earlier this year. C&W's recent action seems inconsistent with the strategy that led to these upgrades. - PSINet's recent addition of direct private peering with several of C&W's transit customers relieved the peering connections between the networks of a couple hundred Mbps of traffic (improving connectivity overall and, undoubtedly, lowering costs for those transit customers). This is significant only because C&W claims PSINet no longer has sufficient traffic to justify the connections according to their published standards. In fact, PSINet's overall traffic continues to grow. - Most of the PSINet traffic previously destined for sites behind C&W has alternative paths through other providers. While this sounds like a generally good thing, especially given the actions C&W has taken, it does make it difficult for those that require certain traffic levels to be maintained consistently for peering. Specifically, C&W's customers (or C&W itself) could alter "natural" traffic flow to favor (or not) various connections to meet their published standards (or not). PSINet demonstrated to C&W that if naturally less favorable announcements were preferred, PSINet could make an almost arbitrarily large (or small) amount of traffic flow between the peers. Even so, in C&W's opinion, PSINet will not be able to comply with their peering policy's traffic standards. It is gratifying to note that even without C&W peering, substantially all of the traffic previously flowing between PSINet and C&W continues to be delivered. - At this time PSINet has not disabled the C&W peering interfaces nor decommissioned any facilities. If C&W chooses to, they can re-enable interfaces on their side and bring back the connectivity lost between their non-transit customers and PSINet. PSINet remains open to discuss with them a new bilateral peering agreement if they so choose. PSINet remains committed to servicing its customers and the Internet with the best possible infrastructure and policies. PSINet still maintains hundreds of peering connections with other ISPs throughout the world. While posting about matters between PSINet and its peering partners is not typical, the circumstances and questions arising from C&W's decision required some clarification. Hopefully this additional clarification helps everyone understand the current situation. -Mitch Levinn PSINet

1 0