From: Dorian Kim <dorian@cic.net>
Likewise, a lot of traffic from Ann Arbor Michigan to Columbus Ohio travels via MAE-East, despite the fact that Merit is already connected to CICnet, which is in turn connected to Columbus (both OSU and OARnet). The problem is, Merit has no "bi-lateral peering" with CICnet.
This is not exactly correct. CICNet Michigan(AS266) peers with Merit over a FDDI ring in Ann Arbor.
I suspect that the problem you are running into is that CICNet Primary region (AS1225) which does not have physical connectivity to AS266 or Merit provides connectivity for OSU, and peers with OARnet.
I am admittedly confused here. CICnet provides connectivity from UMich to OSU, and the other Big Ten schools. CICnet is physically connected to UMich and MichNet, and also to OSU and OARnet. Are you saying that despite the peering with Merit/MichNet and the traffic actually flowing to OSU, some other pieces of CICnet at the same location (OSU and OARnet) are physically and topologically discontiguous? That is, you don't carry your own internal traffic?
This problems has nothing to do with who has what bilaterals with whom, or who is willing to peer with whomever else, but rather a simple constraint based on topology.
So please choose a more apropos example next time. Thanks.
The quoted "bi-lateral peering" was taken from your own private message on the subject. Perhaps I don't understand the use of the term "bi-lateral peering". I thought that it meant willing to forward all traffic from each party to the other party. Your private message indicated that you have such an agreement with OARnet, but not with Merit, and that it was Merit that is unwilling to make the agreement. I then checked with Merit (John Vollbrecht), who gave me a similar (though not identical) explanation. Topological contraints were not mentioned in your private message. Sorry if I misunderstood your message. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, William Allen Simpson wrote:
From: Dorian Kim <dorian@cic.net> This is not exactly correct. CICNet Michigan(AS266) peers with Merit over a FDDI ring in Ann Arbor.
I suspect that the problem you are running into is that CICNet Primary region (AS1225) which does not have physical connectivity to AS266 or Merit provides connectivity for OSU, and peers with OARnet.
I am admittedly confused here. CICnet provides connectivity from UMich to OSU, and the other Big Ten schools. CICnet is physically connected to UMich and MichNet, and also to OSU and OARnet.
This used to be the case. This is right now not the case. This maybe the case again in the future. Confused yet? Welcome to the world of academic networking. :)
Are you saying that despite the peering with Merit/MichNet and the traffic actually flowing to OSU, some other pieces of CICnet at the same location (OSU and OARnet) are physically and topologically discontiguous? That is, you don't carry your own internal traffic?
Depends on what you mean. AS266 traffic goes through MCI to get to AS1225.
The quoted "bi-lateral peering" was taken from your own private message on the subject. Perhaps I don't understand the use of the term "bi-lateral peering". I thought that it meant willing to forward all traffic from each party to the other party.
Normally that would be the case. In this case, this is not physically possible without doing stuff like tunnelling.
Your private message indicated that you have such an agreement with OARnet, but not with Merit, and that it was Merit that is unwilling to make the agreement. I then checked with Merit (John Vollbrecht), who gave me a similar (though not identical) explanation.
Digging through my mail archives, this is what I said: "1) Because while CICNet and OARnet have peering and transit(not in effect yet) arrangements, Michnet and CICNet does not do transit for each other." And I included a copy of the traceroute from AS266 to AS1225. I'm still curious where you got this false impression of the situation. Perhaps it's just my lack of ability to communicate well. -dorian
participants (2)
-
Dorian Kim -
William Allen Simpson