- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by smd＠clock.org 04 Dec '99

04 Dec '99

| Great idea, but charges should apply to _peers_, not customers. Peers and customers are currently indistinguishable. A peer is simply a customer who receives limited connectivity, usually constrained by BGP announcement filtering in both directions, for a heavy discount, sometimes as much as 100% off normal pricing. A supplier, on the other hand, is someone who sends you a bill, even if that bill is hugely discounted, with the expectation that if it is not paid, the connectivity offered as a service will be terminated. This taxonomy is convenient in that it leaves one with a small grey area wherein neither party sends the other a bill, and neither party has the right to demand that service continues for a particular amount of time. | Charging customers for announces prefixes merely creates an incentive | for backbone operators to announce more routes and, correspondingly, | collect more money. If network X is sending network Y too-long prefixes, or too many prefixes, network X may choose to filter them, or require that they be aggregated. A customer paying a larger amount of money is likelier to have this demand met than a customer with a very steep discount. A supplier, on the other hand, may choose to increase the bill when faced with a customer who sends inappropriate prefixes. In the grey area, who knows? So far the only answers there have been inbound filtering and proxy aggregation. Sean.

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by smd＠clock.org 04 Dec '99

04 Dec '99

| Now I don't claim to be a policy wonk and I don't have the | slightest idea of how to make this equitable and fair for all, but I do | know that this would result in an outcome that would give us routing tables | far smaller than our current 67k entries. It doesn't need to be equitable and fair to all; the fact is that I consider my routing table slots to be a scarce resource, and I will conserve that resource. Filtering is one approach; a step towards your approach is relaxing filters for people willing to pay me money to do so. I am sure that if someone with a too-long prefix went to a filtering provider and offered a (probably small) fee, a permanent hole in the inbound filters would be made. We arrive at your approach when we have the ability for someone with a too-long prefix to find every provider who is filtering out the prefix, and negotiate some sort of deal which ends up with a modification to their local filter list. This is a bit unwieldy, since in principle, every routing domain in the Internet might put up filters, and while it is true that perhaps not all of them are someone a person with a too-long prefix would want to talk to at any price greater than $0, a large set will be worth more. Several thousand negotiations (or even several hundred, or even several dozen, and possibly just several) likely will dissuade most people from trying to use a too-long prefix the first place. People with hardcore reasons for using a too-long prefix will probably be willing to pay a fee to an agent able to broker cheapest-possible access to the routing slots in the networks that are smart enough to sell them. As with any market negotiations, some users of a too-long prefix will get a better deal than others. Likewise, some networks can demand higher prices than others. Right now, there are only two known prices for access to routing slots by holders of any prefix of any length: $0 and $infinity. Unfortunately, people on NANOG are much more likely to jump up and down and scream and play politics and whine that THEIR long prefixes are so vitally important that nobody should charge them money for permitting them to occupy routing slots everywhere (because it is against the spirit of the Internet or something like that), than to negotiate an actual price less than $infinity simply by contacting the filtering provider(s) and making an initial offer (or asking them to do so). Your proposal likely will never fly while people in the industry remain hostilely unpragmatic and opposed to free market forces. However, should that change, there are fiddly little details which would have to be worked out; the ugliest of which would be a case where a provider which filters is willing to relax the filter-list in exchange for a small fee, but _it's_ provider is not (or demands a fee the originator is not willing to pay). Another take on this is to consider a global transit network and a national or regional transit network, each of which charges a small price for relaxing a filter against too-long prefixes. If the contract with the global transit network expires, and that GTN is the only direction the national network sees the too-long prefix, what then? A practical technical solution to this would allow "intermediate" backbones to enter into the game of selling routing slots in their networks, no matter what the "top tier" backbones do. | The correlation with route flap should be re-examined. I suspect that this | is no longer a driving force and is more than adequately compensated for by | having flap damping parameters that scale geometrically with the prefix | length. I agree that it should be re-examined, and I have the same suspicion. I believe the problem now is dealing with huge numbers of prefixes (thanks to the trend towards ever smaller networks multihoming) and their dynamism over a longer term than flap-dampening code considers. Sean.

1 0

Filter Policies (was: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)
by Jan Ahrent Czmok 04 Dec '99

04 Dec '99

Hello! IMHO, i also propose to have a clear discussion about some issues which came into my mind when reading all this mails. The next NANOG might be really a good place for this issue. There are some unanswered things: - optimize the Routing Table (e.g. how to come to an agreement with even the largest isps but also including smaller ones) - recent discussed Authorization of Routes and validation - how we all together can get rid of the swamp space (e.g. it MUST the possible somehow) - hints and tips and coordination of filter policies. But these are just my .5 cents Jan

1 0

Geektools SuperWhois update (re: Internic)
by Rodney Joffe 04 Dec '99

04 Dec '99

As you by now know, as of two hours ago (Dec 1, EST) Network Solutions changed their whois to "the new form". NSI being their normal secretive selves, it appears that their new whois servers are not giving out the "correct" information. They show the authoritative whois server for their registrar as rs.internic.net, which, of course, shows the same info as crsnic. $ whois geektools.com(a)rs.internic.net [rs.internic.net] Whois Server Version 1.1 Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: GEEKTOOLS.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: rs.internic.net Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.ULTRADNS.NET Name Server: NS2.ULTRADNS.NET >>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 30 Nov 99 00:40:30 EST <<< The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and Registrars. It appears that whois.networksolutions.com does give the detailed whois data. We can't tell if this is an oversight, or on purpose. None-the-less... We've updated geektools superwhois (both the GUI at www.geektools.com and the command line proxy at whois.geektools.com) to use whois.networksolutions.com when appropriate. This 'breaks' the normal operation of SuperWhois which correctly looks at crsnic first, then the referred server. In this case, crsnic also says rs.internic.net. We'll watch the bouncing ball, and when crsnic starts giving the correct answer (whether whois.networksolutions.com or another) we'll undo the hack. The source tarballs are updated also, showing version 2.2.2. If NSI pulls something else strange, we'll release 2.2.2a pronto. -- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"

2 2

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Vadim Antonov 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

Tony Li wrote: > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for annoucements > and quit this arbitrary filtering? Great idea, but charges should apply to _peers_, not customers. Charging customers for announces prefixes merely creates an incentive for backbone operators to announce more routes and, correspondingly, collect more money. --vadim

2 1

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Dec 3 12:00:01 PST 1999 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 03Dec99 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 261199 67449 271199 67441 281199 67471 291199 67421 301199 67403 011299 67418 021299 67533 031299 67454 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 64.4.64.0/19 from AS7398 *** Bogus 64.6.32.0/20 from AS13740 *** Bogus 64.6.64.0/20 from AS10726 *** Bogus 219.91.160.0/22 from AS7742 *** Bogus 219.91.164.0/23 from AS7742 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 6165 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 3283 (1798 cidr, 1485 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 637 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 974 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 03Dec99 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS271 383 141 242 63.2% BCnet Backbone AS7046 386 250 136 35.2% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS2609 126 11 115 91.3% EUnet-TN AS1221 633 519 114 18.0% TELSTRA-AS AS9269 130 28 102 78.5% Hong Kong CTI AS9706 112 11 101 90.2% Pusan Metropolitan City Office of AS7657 267 170 97 36.3% The Internet Group Limited AS1653 129 38 91 70.5% SUNET Swedish University Network AS7545 147 59 88 59.9% TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS174 565 479 86 15.2% Performance Systems International AS4293 227 142 85 37.4% Internal ASN for C&W AS7496 123 40 83 67.5% Power Up AS577 262 182 80 30.5% Bell Canada Backbone AS3749 136 62 74 54.4% TECNET AS4200 179 109 70 39.1% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS3602 314 246 68 21.7% Sprint Canada Inc. AS816 255 196 59 23.1% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS4) AS705 137 78 59 43.1% ALTERNET-AS AS4740 349 291 58 16.6% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS209 334 279 55 16.5% Qwest Communications AS684 92 46 46 50.0% Manitoba Regional Network Backbon AS701 974 931 43 4.4% Alternet AS9304 58 18 40 69.0% Hutchcity AS1 519 479 40 7.7% GTE Internetworking AS6528 45 7 38 84.4% WORLD-LYNX AS8013 135 99 36 26.7% PSINET-CA AS549 205 169 36 17.6% ONet Backbone AS4755 105 69 36 34.3% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS7568 50 15 35 70.0% C.S. Communications Co., Ltd. AS3737 99 66 33 33.3% PenTeleData Inc. (ASN-PTD) For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

RE: AT&T Worldnet problem
by Sean Donelan 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

Additional information from the AT&T web site about Wednesday's Worldnet problem. >An Apology... And an Explanation. > >On December 1, 1999, there was an outage that affected AT&T WorldNet Service >members. First I would like to apologize for any inconvenience this may have >caused, and second, I'd like to explain what happened. > >This problem was not caused by AT&T's network. However, it did affect our >system, and our members. Another Internet Service Provider made a network >change that caused the public Internet to have incorrect information on how to >reach AT&T WorldNet servers. As a result AT&T WorldNet customers could not >browse the Internet, and mail from other Internet Service Providers to AT&T >WorldNet members was delayed. AT&T engineers worked to isolate the problem and >provided a work around to restore service by 4:30 p.m. In addition, AT&T >notified the other Internet Service Provider, who in turn corrected their >configuration. The smooth operation of the entire Internet depends on accurate >information and cooperation from all Internet Service Providers. This reflects >the distributed nature of the Internet and its design characteristics. > >AT&T WorldNet Service continually works to improve its service. In fact, based >on a recent study by Solomon Wolff Associates, AT&T WorldNet Service was rated >as having the highest level of customer satisfaction among the five largest >Internet Service Providers. > >Again, you have our sincerest apologies for yesterday's outage. Please be >assured that we are working to prevent this kind of an interruption in the >future. > >Thank you for being an AT&T WorldNet Service customer. > >Ed Chatlos >AT&T WorldNet® Service Vice President & General Manager

2 1

OT(semi) backhoes in space
by Alex Pilosov 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991203/sc/mars_sidebar_2.html Let's hope that martians don't have any buried fiber... -- Alex Pilosov | http://www.acecape.com/dsl Acecape, Inc. | AceDSL:The best ADSL in Bell Atlantic area 325 W 38 St. Suite 1005 | (Stealth Marketing Works! :) New York, NY 10018 |

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Howard C. Berkowitz 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

>> > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for >> > annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering? >> >>thanks geoff. :-) >> >>and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8 >>disaster? ahhh, when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check >>would have bounced! >> >>randy > > >When people talk about charging for announcements, it seems as if >there is an assumption that any time a new announcement shows up, it >should be advertised and a charge made for that advertising. Does >the problem simplify, however, if the orientation isn't quite so >real-time? > >What if "problem" long route entries in routing registries had an >additional, digitally signed, flag that said "the originator will >accept charges for this long prefix?" Providers would generate path >filters that permitted advertisements that would generate revenue, >but not others. Since the deaggregated 129/8 would not have been >registered, filters wouldn't have passed it. > >Obviously, there has to be some mechanism, TBD, for actually >settling the charges. > >Also, we would need to guard against cybersquatters that set up >routers just to collect advertising charges. My hunch would be that >squatting is less a problem here, given the need to qualify for an >AS and go through the capital expense of setting up an AS that meets >registry requirements.

1 0

RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

> It's a PITA and not the cleanest of methods, but until all the backbones > quit filtering /24s it's what we have to do. The other alternative (and > we've considered it) is to obtain a much larger space directly from ARIN and > burn the unused space. So which is worse for the net, a table full of /24s or a table full of /19s and no address space left? The hope is registry policy will stop people from getting /19s. Hope doesn't scale. brandon

1 0