Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do?
Build resilience into his single homed, single point of failure non-redundant network.
Steve
============================================= Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call. I think we all assume that our provider "guarantees" us some sort of "total reachability". Near as I can figure, they do not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a "reachability" guarantee? James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation So I'm top posting. Sue me.
JS> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:48:25 -0400 JS> From: James Smith JS> I think we all assume that our provider "guarantees" us some JS> sort of "total reachability". Near as I can figure, they do JS> not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on JS> percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation JS> remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a JS> "reachability" guarantee? <iirc memory="bad"> Wasn't there a small russian ISP that had no access to _1_ during the mid- or late-90s? And didn't some ugly peering battles between 701 and 3561 back when 3561 was MCI cause some { severely hampered | loss of } connectivity between the two? </iirc> Help me out... I wasn't following routing and such very closely back then. But it seems that none of this is new, just another iteration of the same... -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
And didn't some ugly peering battles between 701 and 3561 back when 3561 was MCI cause some { severely hampered | loss of } connectivity between the two?
When AS3561 started (registered in 1994, turned on in 1995), it started with many of the old NSF regionals attached to it. This included what would become AS1. So, I'm fairly sure that AS701 didn't have anything against peering with AS3561. It may be that you are remembering miserable performance. mae-east had to mature in a hurry, mae-west, pennsauken, chicago were just getting started. The CIX SMDS was used in 1995. I don't know when the expression "SMDS = switching makes data slow" started being used (possibly started out east with PSI <--> UUnet) but it is certainly true that the first gen cisco smds and atm cards were miserable under load. IIRC, AS701 and AS3561 had the earliest and richest set of private interconnects. Of course, "earliest and richest" is fairly vague :-) -mark
James Smith wrote (on May 10):
Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call.
It's worth pointing out it's not always a technical decision. Partcularly when things are tight, the bean-counters and other senior management tend to shy away from "redunancy" and "resilience" often in favour of "insurance policies" and "controlled risk". Similar business-decisions are what cause those networks to not peer. Whether fair or not doesn't matter. Big companies are big businesses. Big businesses like to remain big. They all have debt and thus need revenue. A common view is that a peer is the loss of a potential customer. Drop all your peers, gain some potential customers. (Sprint said this to me in those words once) While nobody has tried to take a "Tier-1" to court for what could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of connectivity to *your* network is so small from their perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain, they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience, and having seen this done in black and white). The words used are along the lines of "that is what happens when you connect to a non-tier-1, like us". Just for reference, the European Peering Policy for one of the previously mentioned carriers in this thread requires the announcement of 900+ /19's from seperate LIR assignments, as well as the usual N-points connected, M-bps transfered etc requirements. I'm under NDA so can't say more. needless to say, we don't peer with them, and I don't buy transit from them either, on principle. We calculated that at the time only 5 IP providers in Europe (that were not US owned networks) would meet that 900+ /19's requirement. Chris.
CL> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:29:23 +0100 CL> From: Chrisy Luke [ snipped ] CL> While nobody has tried to take a "Tier-1" to court for what CL> could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers CL> will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of CL> connectivity to *your* network is so small from their CL> perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain, CL> they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience, CL> and having seen this done in black and white). The words used CL> are along the lines of "that is what happens when you connect CL> to a non-tier-1, like us". Now, as much as I'd not expect C&W to peer with us, look at PSINet. Were they small? What about EXDS? Those peering paths were to provide better-<insert various metrics> to the eyeballs. I'd argue that both are/were significant. And as much as it's a good thing to not require everyone to peer with everyone (n^2 would be out of control), it would also be bad if the entire world depended on a single ASN. I agree that a line must be drawn, but disagree with where certain carriers draw the line. But I suppose that we're insignificant to them, and they probably don't even care about selling _transit_ to someone so small. [Not that this is inherently bad... just be up front about it like L3, and tell people what the minimum is.] I guess the C&W slogan is also rubbing me the wrong way. "Delivering on the Internet promise" seems to imply that traffic gets there reliably. ;-) [Note that I'm impressed with the good community support... not just bashing C&W.] Note that this is not peculiar to the Internet. Look at the EDI world, and what happened to ICC with Sterling and GE. _That_, IMHO, is a much more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior. -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
participants (4)
-
Chrisy Luke -
E.B. Dreger -
James Smith -
Mark Kent