C&W Peering Problem?
All: Just got off the phone with C&W's NOC trying to find out why NASA.GOV had fallen off the edge of the earth. When I asked if this had anything to do with the C&W peering policy, the answer was yes. Does anyone have any more information on this? Chuck
Seems to be working again suddenly after 2 days of not working. This must be the "magic" mail list. Chuck On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Charles Scott wrote:
All: Just got off the phone with C&W's NOC trying to find out why NASA.GOV had fallen off the edge of the earth. When I asked if this had anything to do with the C&W peering policy, the answer was yes. Does anyone have any more information on this?
Chuck
I was wondering when this issue was going to be brought up. C&W dropped peering with several backbones. I will bet the problems started about a week ago. It might beg an interesting question. If a tier1 drops enough other backbones that are non-transit buyers.... doesnt that mean that the tier1 is no longer tier1??? Seems that C&W no longer has full routes. Considering that they have been shopping for a buyer of the company, I would guess to say this administrative more affects their share value... doesnt it. dd At 2:25 PM -0400 6/1/01, Charles Scott wrote:
All: Just got off the phone with C&W's NOC trying to find out why NASA.GOV had fallen off the edge of the earth. When I asked if this had anything to do with the C&W peering policy, the answer was yes. Does anyone have any more information on this?
Chuck
I was wondering when this issue was going to be brought up. C&W dropped peering with several backbones. I will bet the problems started about a week ago.
Probably because they didn't meet the new C&W peering requirements. They sent me a link to their peering requirements the other week when I asked. Basically, to peer you have to have an OC48 backbone with redundantly connected nodes in 9 regions of the USA (according to their definition of regions), peering at 4 diverse locations, with a minimum of 45Mbit/s of traffic at each location. Interestingly, C&W's network map doesn't show PoP's in all of their 9 regions. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
Does anyone know who was dropped? I have been having strange connectivity problems between my network on the C&W network and my datacenter which is on GlobalCenter's net. No one can tell me what is going on, but maybe this has something to do with it. Jason Lewis http://www.packetnexus.com It's not secure "Because they told me it was secure". The people at the other end of the link know less about security than you do. And that's scary. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 3:03 PM To: David Diaz Cc: Charles Scott; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: C&W Peering Problem?
I was wondering when this issue was going to be brought up. C&W dropped peering with several backbones. I will bet the problems started about a week ago.
Probably because they didn't meet the new C&W peering requirements. They sent me a link to their peering requirements the other week when I asked. Basically, to peer you have to have an OC48 backbone with redundantly connected nodes in 9 regions of the USA (according to their definition of regions), peering at 4 diverse locations, with a minimum of 45Mbit/s of traffic at each location. Interestingly, C&W's network map doesn't show PoP's in all of their 9 regions. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
It wouldn't suprise me if C&W dropped GlobalCenter as a peering partner, given GC's focus on datacenters and web/server farms generating mostly "push" traffic - I didn't see this as an explicit requirement, but less clueful backbones (Genuity, PSI, and now C&W) do tend to drop peering sessions with other backbones that push far more traffic than they pull. BTW, I just noticed that the Exodus/GC merger went through (at least, www.globalcenter.com brings up Exodus's front page). When did this happen? -C On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:08:37PM -0400, Jason Lewis wrote:
Does anyone know who was dropped? I have been having strange connectivity problems between my network on the C&W network and my datacenter which is on GlobalCenter's net. No one can tell me what is going on, but maybe this has something to do with it.
Jason Lewis http://www.packetnexus.com It's not secure "Because they told me it was secure". The people at the other end of the link know less about security than you do. And that's scary.
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
I didn't see this as an explicit requirement, but less clueful backbones (Genuity, PSI, and now C&W) do tend to drop peering sessions with other backbones that push far more traffic than they pull.
Read section IV of their policy again: IV. Traffic Requirements A. Each peering connection speed shall be at least 155 Mbps. B. The traffic volume at each peering connection shall be at least 45 Mbps. C. The aggregated traffic ratio shall not exceed a ratio of 2 : 1 D. Traffic volumes shall be measured in either direction, inbound or outbound, whichever is higher, on a weekly aggregated average basis over all the points where the parties exchange traffic Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction its in, it just has to be balanced. -Scott
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
It wouldn't suprise me if C&W dropped GlobalCenter as a peering partner, given GC's focus on datacenters and web/server farms generating mostly "push" traffic - I didn't see this as an explicit requirement, but less clueful backbones (Genuity, PSI, and now C&W) do tend to drop peering sessions with other backbones that push far more traffic than they pull.
BTW, I just noticed that the Exodus/GC merger went through (at least, www.globalcenter.com brings up Exodus's front page). When did this happen?
Exodus bought Global Center. The web hosting side of Global Crossing. Global Center did not have a network. Global Crossing does. Hope that helps...
> Seems that C&W no longer has full routes. Well, don't let your rhetoric get too far out ahead of the facts: AS PfxRcd 1 94319 1239 95748 701 98084 3561 101262 <-- Cable & Wireless 6461 102686 715 96438 -Bill
Yes, well sessions seem to be working again. Interesting. -Dave At 12:17 PM -0700 6/1/01, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Seems that C&W no longer has full routes.
Well, don't let your rhetoric get too far out ahead of the facts:
AS PfxRcd 1 94319 1239 95748 701 98084 3561 101262 <-- Cable & Wireless 6461 102686 715 96438
-Bill
participants (8)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Charles Scott -
Christian Nielsen -
Christopher A. Woodfield -
David Diaz -
Jason Lewis -
Scott Patterson -
Simon Lockhart