Peter Jansen wrote:
Scott: Have a look at our peering policy at www.cw.com/peering. It will provide you with some information on peering with large networks.
This should read: "Have a look at our peering policy at www.cw.com/peering if you want to see a prime example of how *not* to develop your peering policy." Peter, I can't believe you have the testicular fortutude to come on this list with this garbage. Do you think we have forgotten the PSI/C&W peering fiasco? Dude, you had *paying* customers who depended on having routes into AS174, and you turned your back on them, knowing damn good and well that PSI was in no position to purchase transit. In fact, I'm surprised to see that you're still a C&W employee after all that mess. Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it? You'd think, after all of the Exodus customers jumping ship after C&W bought them, that you'd start rethinking your business practices. People want, and are willing to pay for, a well connected network, and AS3561 isn't, at least not to the outside world. Also, I would like to point out that if you're mostly content, I doubt you'll ever be able to meet C&W's peering criteria because they have practically no eyeballs. Their wholesale dial division is pretty much extinct, and they seem to be leaning more toward hosting than selling T1s to mom and pop dialup ISPS. It's a great big catch-22 any way you look at it, and I hate you, Peter Jansen, for it. There's a special level of hell for people like you when you die. Dean
Regards
Peter Jansen Global Peering Cable & Wireless
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Granados <scott@graphidelix.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@merit.edu Subject: ratios
I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine elegibility to peer? I have heard that some carrers especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring equal use of the peer?
Thanks
Scott
_____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
</lurk> Well, Never Forget -the- man who defined peering to the FCC, among other american institutions, in modern times ..... is no less than "Bernie" of WorldCom. And, as "Bernie" leaves us, facing allegations of all sorts of things.. Let us never forget -he- was selected to be the "Ethical" guiding light for the internet, circumscribing the boundaries of our .... policies. And CW's policy is merely following in his footsteps, following "precedent", as it were. (IMHO) Of course, I, for one, was never one to follow the Pied Piper.... As PSI, Global Center, Enron, The Leader of Earthlink.... and others, were to learn the wisdom thereof. An Internet -without- peering, hrmmm...... FWIW, I noticed a trend of people withdrawing peering shortly before chapter 13'ing. * shrug * BTW, anyone checked the value of WorldCom stock recently ? "No man is an island" <lurk> Dean S Moran wrote:
Peter Jansen wrote:
Scott: Have a look at our peering policy at www.cw.com/peering. It will provide you with some information on peering with large networks.
This should read: "Have a look at our peering policy at www.cw.com/peering if you want to see a prime example of how *not* to develop your peering policy."
Peter, I can't believe you have the testicular fortutude to come on this list with this garbage. Do you think we have forgotten the PSI/C&W peering fiasco? Dude, you had *paying* customers who depended on having routes into AS174, and you turned your back on them, knowing damn good and well that PSI was in no position to purchase transit. In fact, I'm surprised to see that you're still a C&W employee after all that mess.
Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?
You'd think, after all of the Exodus customers jumping ship after C&W bought them, that you'd start rethinking your business practices. People want, and are willing to pay for, a well connected network, and AS3561 isn't, at least not to the outside world.
Also, I would like to point out that if you're mostly content, I doubt you'll ever be able to meet C&W's peering criteria because they have practically no eyeballs. Their wholesale dial division is pretty much extinct, and they seem to be leaning more toward hosting than selling T1s to mom and pop dialup ISPS.
It's a great big catch-22 any way you look at it, and I hate you, Peter Jansen, for it. There's a special level of hell for people like you when you die.
Dean
Regards
Peter Jansen Global Peering Cable & Wireless
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Granados <scott@graphidelix.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@merit.edu Subject: ratios
I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine elegibility to peer? I have heard that some carrers especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring equal use of the peer?
Thanks
Scott
_____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
It's a great big catch-22 any way you look at it, and I hate you, Peter Jansen, for it. There's a special level of hell for people like you when you die.
a little harsh ;)
Dean
Regards
Peter Jansen Global Peering Cable & Wireless
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Granados <scott@graphidelix.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@merit.edu Subject: ratios
I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine elegibility to peer? I have heard that some carrers especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring equal use of the peer?
Thanks
Scott
_____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?
And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked a couple weeks ago. I don't think this policy is for real - if they actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape. Here's few more stats I just checked: Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes -Ralph
I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements from these carriers serve two functions - to prevent new peers, and to depeer those who are felt to be not worthy. And even the latter is tenuous - most bilateral peering agreements allow for cancellation at will for absolutely no cause. Peering is a business relationship. Refusing to peer does not make one bad, nor does it damn the peering coordinator to eternal damnation. It also does not reflect on those who work for the carrier in other roles, especially those brave enough to post to NANOG on peering matters. Some folks take exception to having ANY sort of peering requirements, like the person who told me that they thought a carrier that required bicoastal peering and an OC-12 network has peering requirements "worse than UUNET". Peering requirements, especially rational ones like multiple location peering, are not in any way bad. If you don't approve of a carrier's peering policy, you have a couple options... You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful effect. You can turn away their sales folks, the next time they try to sell you transit. However, if you say "I won't buy transit from you, because you won't peer from me", don't expect any sort of reaction other than "goodbye", because there is no lost revenue potential - you would never have purchased transit in any case. However, if you say "because you won't peer with other large networks, it decreases the quality of your network, so I won't buy your transit". They may be more effective. However, that needs to happen much more than the sales people hear "I won't buy transit from you because I'm a peer". You can take it out on individuals who you feel are responsible, by refusing to do business with them or hire them in the future. This is very tricky, as all employees of a carrier are not in any way responsible for a carrier's peering policy. Of course, if you get some weasel who comes in for a job interview, with "senior peering engineer" on their resume, and brags about his role in depeering, say, PSI, then I suppose such persons deserve what they get. However, it's rare that this comes up. Additionally, punishing folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive. I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity. - Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ratios
Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?
And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked a couple weeks ago. I don't think this policy is for real - if they actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape. Here's few more stats I just checked: Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes
-Ralph
I actually think this is put very well. I know that in my case I'd prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy. For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet for example. I realize there are many other factors including relyability, cost, company stability etc. but one consideration ior me is their willingness to peer and grow their networks. I wouuld think especially on this list our arguments should stick to being as strictly technical as possible and not venture in to the personal. Easier said than done I realize. However, strong arguments for using networks with open peering policies are more meaningful than ridiculing large carriers who don't wish to peer. The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically acknowledge that fact. If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should just not have a peering policy. On Thu, 9 May 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements from these carriers serve two functions - to prevent new peers, and to depeer those who are felt to be not worthy. And even the latter is tenuous - most bilateral peering agreements allow for cancellation at will for absolutely no cause.
Peering is a business relationship. Refusing to peer does not make one bad, nor does it damn the peering coordinator to eternal damnation. It also does not reflect on those who work for the carrier in other roles, especially those brave enough to post to NANOG on peering matters. Some folks take exception to having ANY sort of peering requirements, like the person who told me that they thought a carrier that required bicoastal peering and an OC-12 network has peering requirements "worse than UUNET". Peering requirements, especially rational ones like multiple location peering, are not in any way bad.
If you don't approve of a carrier's peering policy, you have a couple options...
You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful effect.
You can turn away their sales folks, the next time they try to sell you transit. However, if you say "I won't buy transit from you, because you won't peer from me", don't expect any sort of reaction other than "goodbye", because there is no lost revenue potential - you would never have purchased transit in any case. However, if you say "because you won't peer with other large networks, it decreases the quality of your network, so I won't buy your transit". They may be more effective. However, that needs to happen much more than the sales people hear "I won't buy transit from you because I'm a peer".
You can take it out on individuals who you feel are responsible, by refusing to do business with them or hire them in the future. This is very tricky, as all employees of a carrier are not in any way responsible for a carrier's peering policy. Of course, if you get some weasel who comes in for a job interview, with "senior peering engineer" on their resume, and brags about his role in depeering, say, PSI, then I suppose such persons deserve what they get. However, it's rare that this comes up. Additionally, punishing folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive.
I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity.
- Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ratios
Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?
And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked a couple weeks ago. I don't think this policy is for real - if they actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape. Here's few more stats I just checked: Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes
-Ralph
I imagine "public relations" depts of CW and UUNET will not allow them to just admit they would not peer, and this is why they "have" peering policies. In reality however, UUNET will peer with anyone who pays them money for the peering traffic and they do provide good discounts on this. Add to that some ISPs have negotiated such that they get transit as part of their uunet peering arrangements. I don't have know about CW currently, have not dealt with them for long time, but years ago CWUSA (before buying MCI) did peer willingly and MCI never did really. One interesting note is that UUNET does peer with CW itself in number of new locations, for example big peering point for both of them is Equinix in San Jose. Since I can't imagine those companies going there just to peer with each other, they must have number of other peers their as well... Equanix people - do you want to comment on this? As for buying from companies that are more open to peering, I think this should come into play only if everything else is equal and more important maybe their network and their willingness to work with customer on BGP and setup custom filters, communities, etc. On Thu, 9 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
I actually think this is put very well. I know that in my case I'd prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy. For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet for example. I realize there are many other factors including relyability, cost, company stability etc. but one consideration ior me is their willingness to peer and grow their networks. I wouuld think especially on this list our arguments should stick to being as strictly technical as possible and not venture in to the personal. Easier said than done I realize. However, strong arguments for using networks with open peering policies are more meaningful than ridiculing large carriers who don't wish to peer.
The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically acknowledge that fact. If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should just not have a peering policy.
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements from these carriers serve two functions - to prevent new peers, and to depeer those who are felt to be not worthy. And even the latter is tenuous - most bilateral peering agreements allow for cancellation at will for absolutely no cause.
Peering is a business relationship. Refusing to peer does not make one bad, nor does it damn the peering coordinator to eternal damnation. It also does not reflect on those who work for the carrier in other roles, especially those brave enough to post to NANOG on peering matters. Some folks take exception to having ANY sort of peering requirements, like the person who told me that they thought a carrier that required bicoastal peering and an OC-12 network has peering requirements "worse than UUNET". Peering requirements, especially rational ones like multiple location peering, are not in any way bad.
If you don't approve of a carrier's peering policy, you have a couple options...
You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful effect.
You can turn away their sales folks, the next time they try to sell you transit. However, if you say "I won't buy transit from you, because you won't peer from me", don't expect any sort of reaction other than "goodbye", because there is no lost revenue potential - you would never have purchased transit in any case. However, if you say "because you won't peer with other large networks, it decreases the quality of your network, so I won't buy your transit". They may be more effective. However, that needs to happen much more than the sales people hear "I won't buy transit from you because I'm a peer".
You can take it out on individuals who you feel are responsible, by refusing to do business with them or hire them in the future. This is very tricky, as all employees of a carrier are not in any way responsible for a carrier's peering policy. Of course, if you get some weasel who comes in for a job interview, with "senior peering engineer" on their resume, and brags about his role in depeering, say, PSI, then I suppose such persons deserve what they get. However, it's rare that this comes up. Additionally, punishing folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive.
I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity.
- Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ratios
Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?
And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked a couple weeks ago. I don't think this policy is for real - if they actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape. Here's few more stats I just checked: Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes
-Ralph
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:39:41AM -0700, william@elan.net wrote:
One interesting note is that UUNET does peer with CW itself in number of new locations, for example big peering point for both of them is Equinix in San Jose. Since I can't imagine those companies going there just to peer with each other, they must have number of other peers their as well... Equanix people - do you want to comment on this?
No, thats why they went there (well that and to sell transit). :) It's a lot cheaper and easier to get a crossconnect done within 48 hours then it is to get a metro OC12. Multiply that by the number of people they do peer with, and it adds up to a lot. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 10:17:38AM -0700, Scott Granados wrote:
I actually think this is put very well. I know that in my case I'd prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy. For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet for example. I realize there are many other factors including relyability, cost, company stability etc. but one consideration ior me is their willingness to peer and grow their networks.
The status of those peering links is most important than if they exist or not. I'm not aware of any major UUNet peers being congested, as compared to say a company in an extremely difficult financial situation who just laid off almost all of their engineers and doesn't have any time or resources for upgrading congested peers. Yes UU only privately peers with like 20 people and it's quite possible that your traffic will just go to another large backbone and be congested there, but thats the chance you take in this world which believes in claiming "99.999% uptime with self healing sonet rings!" instead of showing you their actual capacity and utilization. If you choose to peer with only 20 people, but do it with massive amounts of capacity, that is one thing. If you keep old congested peers around, and you refuse to upgrade them or stonewall for years promising upgrades but never follow through because you don't like someones ratio, that is another. At the end of the day I can still have respect for UU because they get the packets through, even if I don't necessarily agree with where they send them to do it.
The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically acknowledge that fact. If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should just not have a peering policy.
I think Level 3's is still the most difficult on paper, despite the fact that most of their peers will never meet these requirements (http://www.level3.com/1511.html): Dual OC48 into every city Presence in 15 major cities 1000Mb/s minimum traffic exchanged Must peer at OC12 or higher Must peer in 8 locations -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity.
- Daniel Golding
Oh come now Dan, that is too much of a logical decision for this mailing list :) -Steve
At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements from these carriers serve two functions - to prevent new peers, and to depeer those who are felt to be not worthy. And even the latter is tenuous - most bilateral peering agreements allow for cancellation at will for absolutely no cause.
Most that I've signed require a bit more notice than, say, a couple days. Ours requires 60 days, unless it's for some cause ( which still provides a period for the other network to "cure" ).
You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful effect.
It informs other networks of the actions taken by said carrier. Other networks may in turn change *their* business decisions based on that information.
Additionally, punishing folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive.
Rational is a pretty subjective concept. :) Overly restrictive covenants wrt housing have been struck down in the past. One could make an analogy to overly restrive peering agreements if one wanted to go down that particular rat hole...
I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity.
Aye, and just like any business decision they affect other business decisions. Regardless, it smarts a bit when a peer with no warning terminates peering and then offers to sell you transit in the same breath. It smacks a little too much of trying to strong-arm the peer into having to pay for transit by not giving them sufficient time to develop alternate arrangements. -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless! \ Director, Engineering | @ @ | \ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net
In the referenced message, Dean S Moran said:
Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?
It would be more responsible if they had a minimum number of "fully aggregated (by origin-as) routes" This would, hopefully, prevent folks from merely deaggregating to meet the number. Hopefully, that number would be significantly less than 5000. Some time back, I look a look at all routes with origin as701, and came up with: 2165 total routes 1846 routes after removing more-specifics (not even going the extra step to aggregate what was left) 319 pointless more-specifics (same origin, so no additional path information) 14% of routes originated by as701 are entirely chaff I emailed uunet, asking why it was they were leaking all these wasted routes at me, but didn't get a response. I took a look at 3561 based upon that same snapshot and see: 342 total routes originated by 3561 324 routes after removing more-specifics (not even going the extra step to aggregate what was left) 18 pointless more-specifics (same origin, so no additional path information) 5% of routes originated by as3561 are entirely chaff so, as3561 appears to be less sloppy, but if their policy is worded "minimum of X routes", it definately encourages sloppiness.
participants (11)
-
Chris Parker -
Daniel Golding -
Dean S Moran -
Ralph Doncaster -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Richard Irving -
Scott Granados -
Stephen Griffin -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Steve Meuse -
william＠elan.net