you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool. we can't decide whether to force next hop on their routes, or keep watching and de-peer them if they do not cease and desist. what do others do in this circumstance? randy
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool.
we can't decide whether to force next hop on their routes, or keep watching and de-peer them if they do not cease and desist. what do others do in this circumstance?
I'm aware of at least one fairly major backbone who does this (at least they used to). What's the issue with this anyways? I mean, at least superficially it's basically the same traffic. I can see that there would be some issues with how the traffic transitions the ixs, which may or may not be a problem. Pete.
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
we can't decide whether to force next hop on their routes, or keep watching and de-peer them if they do not cease and desist. what do others do in this circumstance?
Doesnt your AUP cover this? If its a violation of AUP, notify them, then force next hop, then de-peer in that order. -Dan
we can't decide whether to force next hop on their routes, or keep watching and de-peer them if they do not cease and desist. what do others do in this circumstance? Doesnt your AUP cover this? If its a violation of AUP, notify them, then force next hop, then de-peer in that order.
apologies for being insufficiently clear. let me be more specific with my question. do you peer at the ixs? if so, do you detect such circumstances? if so, what do you do? if not, no reply needed. randy
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool.
we can't decide whether to force next hop on their routes, or keep watching and de-peer them if they do not cease and desist. what do others do in this circumstance?
I know of two major providers who are (well were 12 months ago) doing this. I would call them up and try to get them to quit, if not and you can afford it force next hop. -- Check out the new CLEC mailing list at http://www.robotics.net/clec
<> Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting http://www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net
randy
In a previous e-mail, Randy Bush said:
we can't decide whether to force next hop on their routes, or keep watching and de-peer them if they do not cease and desist. what do others do in this circumstance?
[Not speaking for any employer, just for myself.] While I think it is rude not to set next-hop-self on transit, I'll also point out doing so may actually hurt all involved. Consider a poorly constructed exchange point of two switches: +----------+ +----------+ TC ------+ | | +----TP | Switch 1 +-Weak Link-+ Switch 2 | Sink-----+ | | +----Other +----------+ +----------+ TC = Transit Customer TP = Transit Provider Sink = Where all the traffic is going Other = Some other network that the Sink network wants to get to. Now, if TP advertises the Sink to TC, and TC sends directly to the Sink the traffic stays in switch 1. However, if TP sets next-hop-self the traffic is sent across the weak link to TP, then back across the weak link to the Sink. This may degrade the ability for the Sink network to get to the Other network. I think it breaks down to your point of view: 1) I want the most efficient traffic distribution. These are people that tend to peer with everyone, and while they might dislike providers sending them stuff they didn't ask for, they will accept the traffic efficiency that I described above. 2) I want to control peering. These people tend to not peer a lot at public exchanges, and get flaming mad if you don't set next hop self because they want to see you pay the penality for the traffic, even if it does just all come back to them. 3) Exchange points are not for transit. These people don't like the concept of transit at the exchange at all, and find both situations distasteful for their respective disadvantages. Personally, I think it is worth the cost of a cross connect to get transit off exchange points. This has several advantages. First, it gets no one upset. Second, it gives the two parties involved control over the connection (can you say QOS) that is not available over an exchange point. Third, it probably gets (some) traffic off the exchange point, which with many having the "weak links" is a good thing. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool.
Well, that is actually up the the IX operators and participants. Some do think it is cool and a much desired feature. Its a really good way to reduce expensive telecoms costs. Of course in the US, where bandwidth is free, your castigation of this behaviour may be appropriate.
we can't decide whether to force next hop on their routes, or keep watching and de-peer them if they do not cease and desist. what do others do in this circumstance?
drop peering w/ verio?
randy
-- bill
you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool. Well, that is actually up the the IX operators and participants.
and which are you? randy
you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool. Well, that is actually up the the IX operators and participants.
and which are you?
Operator. And you?
randy
you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool. Well, that is actually up the the IX operators and participants. and which are you? Operator. And you?
just a humble bottom feeding scum sucker. and i was talking about major exchanges.
you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool. Well, that is actually up the the IX operators and participants. and which are you? Operator. And you?
just a humble bottom feeding scum sucker.
and i was talking about major exchanges.
Well, from a two-bit, backwater exchange operator to a humble bottom feeding scum sucker, perhaps neither of us can speak for the major exchanges or big operators. For that matter, who are we to determine what is "cool" for big players and major exchanges.
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 08:17:33PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
Well, that is actually up the the IX operators and participants. and which are you? Operator. And you?
just a humble bottom feeding scum sucker.
(says nothing) Cheers, -- jr ':-)' a -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Buy copies of The New Hackers Dictionary. The Suncoast Freenet Give them to all your friends. Tampa Bay, Florida http://www.ccil.org/jargon/ +1 813 790 7592
you might be amused to write a bit of code to see if your ix peers are giving you next-hops of other provider(s). it is clear that a number of providers are selling transit across the ixs. not at all cool.
we can't decide whether to force next hop on their routes, or keep watching and de-peer them if they do not cease and desist. what do others do in this circumstance?
Note some people are: a) Selling/Giving transit (often backup) *but* setting next-hop (much less bad if bad at all) b) Setting next hop to other routers also owned by them (nothing wrong with this). I think one major MAE user is doing this to work around HOL blocking. -- Alex Bligh GX Networks (formerly Xara Networks)
participants (9)
-
Alex Bligh -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Dan Hollis -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Leo Bicknell -
Nathan Stratton -
Pete Kruckenberg -
Randy Bush -
Randy Bush