Recently I was contacted by an Internap sales person. The third line of the email read: "As you know well, BGP makes all routing decisions simply based on HOP COUNT" I blinked my eyes a couple of times.. Yes it really said hop count. Then I replied to the guy that if he tries to sell a technical product to technical people he should get his info straight. But he replied BGP actually makes decisions based on hop count. He even sent an URL from the internap website that states this http://www.internap.com/it-iq/route-optimization-miro/ On that page there is also this gem: "BGP relies on the premise that hops are responsible for packet loss and congestion, and therefore a route with fewer hops is inherently better. " I can imagine blatant misinformation like this from a shady startup trying to trick some sales with smoke and mirrors, but from Internap? -- Bas
On 10/20/2011 10:48 AM, bas wrote:
Recently I was contacted by an Internap sales person. The third line of the email read:
"As you know well, BGP makes all routing decisions simply based on HOP COUNT"
I blinked my eyes a couple of times.. Yes it really said hop count. Then I replied to the guy that if he tries to sell a technical product to technical people he should get his info straight.
But he replied BGP actually makes decisions based on hop count. He even sent an URL from the internap website that states this http://www.internap.com/it-iq/route-optimization-miro/
On that page there is also this gem: "BGP relies on the premise that hops are responsible for packet loss and congestion, and therefore a route with fewer hops is inherently better. "
I can imagine blatant misinformation like this from a shady startup trying to trick some sales with smoke and mirrors, but from Internap?
-- Bas
Reply with a link to wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGP Possibly better still, Cisco's docwiki about it, assuming he might consider Cisco a bit more of an authoritative source: http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol#BGP_Attributes Paul
Well, it didn't say "router hops"... They could mean "AS hops" I guess. I never trust marketing garbage anyway. It makes my head hurt. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM, bas <kilobit@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently I was contacted by an Internap sales person. The third line of the email read:
"As you know well, BGP makes all routing decisions simply based on HOP COUNT"
I blinked my eyes a couple of times.. Yes it really said hop count. Then I replied to the guy that if he tries to sell a technical product to technical people he should get his info straight.
But he replied BGP actually makes decisions based on hop count. He even sent an URL from the internap website that states this http://www.internap.com/it-iq/route-optimization-miro/
On that page there is also this gem: "BGP relies on the premise that hops are responsible for packet loss and congestion, and therefore a route with fewer hops is inherently better. "
I can imagine blatant misinformation like this from a shady startup trying to trick some sales with smoke and mirrors, but from Internap?
-- Bas
Looking at the link referenced below, the route optimization method mentioned appears to be very similar to the old Routescience or Sockeye BGP optimization products. -----Original Message----- From: Jay Nakamura [mailto:zeusdadog@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:54 PM To: bas Cc: nanog Subject: Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Well, it didn't say "router hops"... They could mean "AS hops" I guess. I never trust marketing garbage anyway. It makes my head hurt. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM, bas <kilobit@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently I was contacted by an Internap sales person. The third line of the email read:
"As you know well, BGP makes all routing decisions simply based on HOP COUNT"
I blinked my eyes a couple of times.. Yes it really said hop count. Then I replied to the guy that if he tries to sell a technical product to technical people he should get his info straight.
But he replied BGP actually makes decisions based on hop count. He even sent an URL from the internap website that states this http://www.internap.com/it-iq/route-optimization-miro/
On that page there is also this gem: "BGP relies on the premise that hops are responsible for packet loss and congestion, and therefore a route with fewer hops is inherently better. "
I can imagine blatant misinformation like this from a shady startup trying to trick some sales with smoke and mirrors, but from Internap?
-- Bas
This communication, together with any attachments or embedded links, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments or embedded links, from your system.
</lurk> Awww C'mon. It is the same old, same old. Q: What is the difference between a Sales Engineer, and an Engineer ? A: The Engineer *knows* when he is lying. :-D "same as it ever was.... same as it ever was...same as it .. ever... was.." - Talking Heads <lurk> On 10/20/2011 04:59 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
Looking at the link referenced below, the route optimization method mentioned appears to be very similar to the old Routescience or Sockeye BGP optimization products.
-----Original Message----- From: Jay Nakamura [mailto:zeusdadog@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:54 PM To: bas Cc: nanog Subject: Re: Did Internap lose all clue?
Well, it didn't say "router hops"... They could mean "AS hops" I guess. I never trust marketing garbage anyway. It makes my head hurt.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM, bas<kilobit@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently I was contacted by an Internap sales person. The third line of the email read:
"As you know well, BGP makes all routing decisions simply based on HOP COUNT"
I blinked my eyes a couple of times.. Yes it really said hop count. Then I replied to the guy that if he tries to sell a technical product to technical people he should get his info straight.
But he replied BGP actually makes decisions based on hop count. He even sent an URL from the internap website that states this http://www.internap.com/it-iq/route-optimization-miro/
On that page there is also this gem: "BGP relies on the premise that hops are responsible for packet loss and congestion, and therefore a route with fewer hops is inherently better. "
I can imagine blatant misinformation like this from a shady startup trying to trick some sales with smoke and mirrors, but from Internap?
-- Bas
This communication, together with any attachments or embedded links, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments or embedded links, from your system.
On Oct 20, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
Looking at the link referenced below, the route optimization method mentioned appears to be very similar to the old Routescience or Sockeye BGP optimization products.
That might have something to do with the fact InterNAP bought both of them (and the third company in that space). -- TTFN, patrick
On 10/20/11 5:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
Looking at the link referenced below, the route optimization method mentioned appears to be very similar to the old Routescience or Sockeye BGP optimization products.
That might have something to do with the fact InterNAP bought both of them (and the third company in that space).
umm... RouteScience was bought by Avaya....
On 10/20/11 5:22 PM, "manny" <mhernand1@comcast.net> wrote:
On 10/20/11 5:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
Looking at the link referenced below, the route optimization method mentioned appears to be very similar to the old Routescience or Sockeye BGP optimization products.
That might have something to do with the fact InterNAP bought both of them (and the third company in that space).
umm... RouteScience was bought by Avaya....
Internap grabbed Sockeye.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Darrell Hyde wrote:
That might have something to do with the fact InterNAP bought both of them (and the third company in that space).
I believe RouteScience was acquired by Avaya in 2004. Did Internap acquire the IP after the fact?
Correct on RouteScience going to Lucent/Avaya. InterNAP bought NetVMG and Sockeye in 2003. Proficient Networks merged with IP Deliver forming Infiniroute in 2004. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2003/1013internap.html http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privc... And Cisco in the space with OER/PFR. - -- ========= bep -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6hEQ0ACgkQE1XcgMgrtybB5gCfUGfsya2+PlT21jT2nnbp9X9m 7j4AnRXDKEOHeykd9t30tS5FjgenKTch =a85l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Jay Nakamura <zeusdadog@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, it didn't say "router hops"... They could mean "AS hops" I guess.
Well actually the url I included earlier contains an explanation ---- "Understanding the “Hop” Data transmitted across a network passes through numerous devices and carriers before it reaches its final destination. Each device is a transfer point and is referred to as a hop. ----
On Oct 20, 2011, at 4:48 PM, bas wrote:
Recently I was contacted by an Internap sales person. The third line of the email read:
"As you know well, BGP makes all routing decisions simply based on HOP COUNT"
I blinked my eyes a couple of times.. Yes it really said hop count. Then I replied to the guy that if he tries to sell a technical product to technical people he should get his info straight.
But he replied BGP actually makes decisions based on hop count. He even sent an URL from the internap website that states this http://www.internap.com/it-iq/route-optimization-miro/
On that page there is also this gem: "BGP relies on the premise that hops are responsible for packet loss and congestion, and therefore a route with fewer hops is inherently better. "
I can imagine blatant misinformation like this from a shady startup trying to trick some sales with smoke and mirrors, but from Internap?
That's a shame - I had a sales-oriented conversation with a few people from Internap (we are already a customer but this was about other services) and they were very clueful. This was a few months ago (including some discussions about BGP and their optimization products where their technical sales lead was clueful about how it worked and what it did). Though, Internap had the NOC who replied to a problem report of mine (where even-numbered addresses weren't pingable in our block via Internap; I used <our prefix>.0, a router loopback, as an indication of something unpingable which normally is) with "You should expect <our prefix>.1 to respond to ping and such, but not 2<our prefix>.0 as that is only capable of representing a subnet and not a network interface of any kind, or any machine, at all"
On 10/20/2011 4:03 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
"You should expect<our prefix>.1 to respond to ping and such, but not 2<our prefix>.0 as that is only capable of representing a subnet and not a network interface of any kind, or any machine, at all"
Honestly, though. Can you blame them in this case? Given the lack of insight into your network, I also might question your numbering system (given the number of people who use .0 and .255 in /24 Ethernet segments). Although, there are still perfectly good reasons never to use .0 or .255 in production networks, even if it does work most of the time. I just finished griping at some vendors for using .0/31 on the first ptp link. Sure, it works, it might always work, but I'll be mighty pissed when I have to renumber core interfaces because some stupid software program freaks about it. I can live with 126 ptp links per /24 in 1918 space of all things. Jack
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:39:51 CDT, Jack Bates said:
On 10/20/2011 4:03 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
"You should expect<our prefix>.1 to respond to ping and such, but not 2<our prefix>.0 as that is only capable of representing a subnet and not a network interface of any kind, or any machine, at all"
Honestly, though. Can you blame them in this case? Given the lack of insight into your network, I also might question your numbering system
Yes, it's possibly foolish to allocate x.y.z.0 or .255. But saying that that x.y.z.0 is *not* *capable* of representing an interface is demonstrating a dangerous lack of knowledge. There's several totally legal .0 and .255 addresses in each /22 subnet, and yes people *do* use /22 subnets. Unfortunately, we're still stuck with "Don't use .0 or .255, because there are *still* people out there who don't understand CIDR and will hassle you about it"... What really sucks is when the CIDR-challenged people are hassling you indirectly via the code they write... ;)
On 10/20/2011 8:08 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Yes, it's possibly foolish to allocate x.y.z.0 or .255. But saying that that x.y.z.0 is *not* *capable* of representing an interface is demonstrating a dangerous lack of knowledge. There's several totally legal .0 and .255 addresses in each /22 subnet, and yes people *do* use /22 subnets. Unfortunately, we're still stuck with "Don't use .0 or .255, Yeah, I quit using them in '98ish and never bothered trying again. Was annoying the first time I realized the dialup user wasn't working because they had a .0 or .255 address from the pool.
Of course, I've had more calls from people asking why they don't work when they aren't supposed to work. :)
because there are *still* people out there who don't understand CIDR and will hassle you about it"... What really sucks is when the CIDR-challenged people are hassling you indirectly via the code they write... ;)
Yeah, but at 2-4 addresses per /24, I really can't be bothered to yell at the coders. Easier to just not use them. Jack
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:08 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
Yes, it's possibly foolish to allocate x.y.z.0 or .255.
But saying that that x.y.z.0 is *not* *capable* of representing an interface is demonstrating a dangerous lack of knowledge. There's several totally legal .0 and .255 addresses in each /22 subnet, and yes people *do* use /22 subnets. Unfortunately, we're still stuck with "Don't use .0 or .255, because there are *still* people out there who don't understand CIDR and will hassle you about it"...
A decade ago, I recall allocating a /23 to a dialup pool and getting calls from customers who landed on .0 and .255 because they were unable to reach random sites. It should be legal, but doesn't always work. I assumed this was still the case. Several months ago, I fired up a permanent aws ec2 instance with a static IP. To my surprise, they allocated me a .0 address. I haven't noticed any issues with it at all. But I figure if Amazon is using .0 as a normal part of their deployments, their scale is so high that if it didn't work reliably you'd think they would have noticed by now. I don't know if they also use .255.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:48:34PM +0200, bas wrote:
Recently I was contacted by an Internap sales person. The third line of the email read:
"As you know well, BGP makes all routing decisions simply based on HOP COUNT"
I blinked my eyes a couple of times.. Yes it really said hop count. Then I replied to the guy that if he tries to sell a technical product to technical people he should get his info straight.
Errr, I think they mean AS hops, which is actually mostly correct. After you eliminate things that don't actually convey any information (like localpref, which you have to configure yourself), and things that don't provide any meaningful data in a multi-network path selection role (like MEDs), AS-PATH length is pretty much the only useful basis you have for picking a best path from your BGP peers. All other marketing crap asside, they aren't incorrect in pointing out that BGP really sucks as a way to pick a best path. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
participants (15)
-
bas -
Brant I. Stevens -
Bruce Pinsky -
Darrell Hyde -
Holmes,David A -
Jack Bates -
Jay Nakamura -
manny -
Matt Buford -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Graydon -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Richard Irving -
Ryan Rawdon -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu