- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
by Paul Ferguson 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

I think this sounds like a fine idea. - paul At 02:25 PM 10/30/96 -0500, Jon Zeeff wrote: > >Which is why someone at NANOG suggested using the port # (vs. MAC address). > >> > Problem is that if hardware fails or is swapped out, MAC addresses change. > >

1 0

RE: A proposal for reducing routes due to multihoming
by Vadim Antonov 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

Alexis Rosen wrote: >Bill Simpson claims that this idea is ~10 years old, but if so perhaps >it's time to air it again.... >It's dead simple, really: Assign address blocks to pairs of providers. >Both providers announce those blocks all the time, and assign addresses >out of those blocks to customers who multihome between those two >providers. That idea also assumes that providers exchange specifics within shared blocks. Otherwise it won't work. Doesn't sound like big savings... And is certainly a hell to manage. I demonstrated some time ago that the lower boundary on the routing table size given today's Internet topology is about 300 routes. That was done by analyzing AS-paths -- i.e. the assumption was that everything can be aggregated down to 1 route per AS. The result generally indicates that 90% of routes can be eliminated by renumbering and aggregation. The rest is simply too few to worry about. --vadim

1 0

Ok, help for the helpless.
by Derek Elder 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

I know that this has been beaten to death in the past, but I would like some comments from people actually using the Gigarouter. My application is a DS-3 ATM connection that is terminating on the remote side to a Fore ATM switch. The router will be defaultless. Otherwise, I'm ordering a 7513 with AIP-DS3. I want to be prepared for the future. | Derek Elder | djelder(a)accessus.net

1 0

Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
by dvv＠sprint.net 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

Hmmmm, a good idea - make your router to accept packets with src MAC addresses of its BGP peers only, no? Dima Robert E. Seastrom writes: > > From: dvv(a)sprint.net (Dima Volodin) > > You don't mean changing one MAC address in Gigaswitch configuration is a > bolder feat than swapping (failed) equipment, do you? > > what i just said to him: "yeah, but the ip addresses don't. ever hear > of arp?" > > ---Rob > > >

4 5

Re: Peering Policy ( was Re: AGIS/DIGEX )
by Scott Huddle 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> wrote > > On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Scott Huddle wrote: > > > > > Applying lets say 1 cent per 100 bit charge, AAA gets $455.64 from BBB > > > > > > > So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used > > > > anywhere??? > > > > > > The bookkeeping costs $2000 per month for *BOTH* providers to monitor > > > this, collect data, collect bills, etc.... > > > > Source of data, please? > > Same source as the other guy's data. I pulled it out of thin air. > Actually, I figured $2,000 per month would be an appropriate salary for > one clerk to handle this job. > > And the point was that managing settlements costs money. We know that in > the POTS system the costs of usage based billing are at least 50% of the > total. OK, do you have a source for the POTs number? -scott

2 1

Re: Peering Policy ( was Re: AGIS/DIGEX )
by Scott Huddle 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> wrote > On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Pritish Shah wrote: > > > Applying lets say 1 cent per 100 bit charge, AAA gets $455.64 from BBB > > > So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used > > anywhere??? > > The bookkeeping costs $2000 per month for *BOTH* providers to monitor > this, collect data, collect bills, etc.... Source of data, please? -scott

3 2

Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
by Paul Ferguson 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

Apparently people are still missing the point. On a shared media exchange, there is nothing to preclude another entity from pointing default to you even if they are *not* peering with you [a.k.a. bit-dumping]. - paul At 11:15 AM 10/30/96 -0500, Pritish Shah wrote: > >So far from what I have gathered, everyone is afraid of being used as a >transit point. There is a very simple solution available which I can't >figure out why people are not using. > >Both peers charge each other for the bits being peered. So now if one >peer is being used as a transit point, then they get compensated for it. > >Eg > >AAA BBB >15443621 bits -> 15443621 bits >20000000 bits <- 20000000 bits > > >Difference 4556379 bits additional sent from BBB to AAA > >Applying lets say 1 cent per 100 bit charge, AAA gets $455.64 from BBB > >Simple!!!! > >Now with this kind of peering arrangement, no one has to be worried about >being used as a transit point -- infact they will want to be used as a >transit point. > >This will also allow medium sized ISPs to peer with each-other. > >So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used >anywhere??? > >Pritish >

7 9

Re: AGIS/DIGEX
by matthew＠scruz.net 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

This exact thought has occured to me. Fixed charges to peer at fewer places. You can even come up with reasonable assumptions for fixed charges. (like that people who peer at one coast but not the other are costing you some fraction of one direction of a coast-to-coast DS3, and ought to pay you about that much) Perhaps if/when we end up at additional NAPs we'll implement this policy ourselves. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net Original message <Pine.ULT.3.93.961030093058.20904H-100000(a)halcyon.halcyon.com> From: Ed Morin <edm(a)halcyon.com> Date: Oct 30, 9:32 Subject: Re: AGIS/DIGEX > > Maybe a peering agreement that has settlements based on the number of > NAP's you peer at? Peering at _no_ NAP's means paying full price with > a decreasing scale down to nothing if you peer at 5 NAP's (or whatever > the current hurdle is set at). > > Ed >

1 0

Re: AGIS/DIGEX
by Mark Borchers 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

> AGIS has made it a 5-NAP requirement - and the AADS and PacBell NAPs > are not the easiest to get into on 1-day notice. > What I heard them say was that you had to peer with them in every NAP where they were present...implying that if they go into a sixth NAP, their peering requirement increases. Mark Borchers InfiNet Network Engineering NOC: (757) 624-2295 ext. 3007

6 6

Re: A proposal for reducing routes due to multihoming
by Tony Li 30 Oct '96

30 Oct '96

The first time I heard this idea was last year, from Noel Chiappa. Joel Halpern and I spent a while discussing it and decided it would scale surprisingly well. However, why would the major providers be motivated to implement it at all? Because it reduces routes... and it has other benefits, such as allowing subscribers to change providers within the provider group without renumbering. If you still have a copy of Yakov's ID on stratum based aggregation, you might check that out. Sorry, it's expired and I don't have a copy myself. Yakov and I are discussing overhauling the document and resubmitting it. Tony

1 0