That looks like a transit connection that Cogent bought at Ashburn, VA, not SFI peering connection. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Ray Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:11 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Cogent now peering with Sprint? I never thought Sprint would ever renew its relationship with Sprint: Tracing the route to portus.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.6) 1 sl-bb24-rly-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.14.122) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 sl-st22-ash-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.189) 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 3 p15-2.core01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.61) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 4 v3492-mpd01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.222) [AS 174] 16 msec 80 msec 196 msec 5 v3497.mpd01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.65) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 6 t9-3.mpd01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.222) [AS 174] 44 msec 44 msec 48 msec 7 t2-3.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.186) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 8 g2-0-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.101) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 9 g49.ba01.b002698-1.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.12.130) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 10 PAJO-Networks.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.9.190) [AS 174] 72 msec 76 msec 72 msec 11 dcap04.pcap.lax01.tierzero.net (216.31.128.14) [AS 11509] 72 msec 76 msec 72 msec 12 mmic-gw.dcap6.lax.us.tierzero.net (216.31.188.94) [AS 11509] 76 msec 80 msec 80 msec 13 dazedandconfused.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.4) [AS 11509] 84 msec 84 msec 88 msec 14 portus.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.6) [AS 11509] 84 msec 84 msec 88 msec Next I will see pigs flying :) Wonder how long it will last based on Cogent's past behavior as noted here. Edward Ray ------------------------------------------------------------- This mail was scanned by BitDefender For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.com -------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen it at other places as well: Tracing the route to portus.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.6) 1 sl-bb24-ana-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.1.138) 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 2 sl-st21-la-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.69) 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 3 p12-3.core01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.41) [AS 174] 48 msec 8 msec 40 msec 4 t9-4.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.141) [AS 174] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 5 g2-0-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.101) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 6 g49.ba01.b002698-1.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.12.130) [AS 174] 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec 7 PAJO-Networks.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.9.190) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 8 dcap04.pcap.lax01.tierzero.net (216.31.128.14) [AS 11509] 4 msec 8 msec 4 msec 9 mmic-gw.dcap6.lax.us.tierzero.net (216.31.188.94) [AS 11509] 12 msec 8 msec 8 msec 10 dazedandconfused.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.4) [AS 11509] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec 11 portus.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.6) [AS 11509] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec I used to be getting 4 ms latency when my provider used Level3. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Collie [mailto:bcollie@ena.com] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:13 PM To: Ed Ray; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Cogent now peering with Sprint? That looks like a transit connection that Cogent bought at Ashburn, VA, not SFI peering connection. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Ray Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:11 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Cogent now peering with Sprint? I never thought Sprint would ever renew its relationship with Sprint: Tracing the route to portus.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.6) 1 sl-bb24-rly-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.14.122) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 sl-st22-ash-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.189) 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 3 p15-2.core01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.61) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 4 v3492-mpd01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.222) [AS 174] 16 msec 80 msec 196 msec 5 v3497.mpd01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.65) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 6 t9-3.mpd01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.222) [AS 174] 44 msec 44 msec 48 msec 7 t2-3.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.186) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 8 g2-0-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.101) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 9 g49.ba01.b002698-1.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.12.130) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 10 PAJO-Networks.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.9.190) [AS 174] 72 msec 76 msec 72 msec 11 dcap04.pcap.lax01.tierzero.net (216.31.128.14) [AS 11509] 72 msec 76 msec 72 msec 12 mmic-gw.dcap6.lax.us.tierzero.net (216.31.188.94) [AS 11509] 76 msec 80 msec 80 msec 13 dazedandconfused.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.4) [AS 11509] 84 msec 84 msec 88 msec 14 portus.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.6) [AS 11509] 84 msec 84 msec 88 msec Next I will see pigs flying :) Wonder how long it will last based on Cogent's past behavior as noted here. Edward Ray ------------------------------------------------------------- This mail was scanned by BitDefender For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.com ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- This mail was scanned by BitDefender For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.com ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- This mail was scanned by BitDefender For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.com -------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct 31, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Bob Collie wrote:
That looks like a transit connection that Cogent bought at Ashburn, VA, not SFI peering connection.
Hrmm, I can't tell by looking at a traceroute who paid whom, if anyone. Care to explain your magic? Is there a code in the in- addrs? Perhaps "sl-$FOO" means something in Sprint-speak? Secondly, does anyone really give a rat's ass who is "SFI" any longer? There are at least 2 fully "SFI" networks who can't route half as well as a whole slew of non-SFI networks these days. If [Cogent|Sprint] [buying|peering|whatever] [from|with] [Cogent| Sprint] makes their network better (i.e. lower latency, lower packet loss, higher throughput, and, if you care, lower jitter), I applaud them. Anyone who thinks "X pays Y" is more important than any of the metrics above needs to reevaluate their priorities. (At least from a customer / engineering PoV. I wouldn't suggest $NETWORK's bean counters have the same priorities as their network engineers & customers. :) IMHO, of course. -- TTFN, patrick
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Ray Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:11 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Cogent now peering with Sprint?
I never thought Sprint would ever renew its relationship with Sprint:
Tracing the route to portus.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.6)
1 sl-bb24-rly-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.14.122) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 sl-st22-ash-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.189) 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 3 p15-2.core01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.61) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 4 v3492-mpd01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.222) [AS 174] 16 msec 80 msec 196 msec 5 v3497.mpd01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.65) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 6 t9-3.mpd01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.222) [AS 174] 44 msec 44 msec 48 msec 7 t2-3.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.186) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 8 g2-0-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.101) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 9 g49.ba01.b002698-1.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.12.130) [AS 174] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 10 PAJO-Networks.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.9.190) [AS 174] 72 msec 76 msec 72 msec 11 dcap04.pcap.lax01.tierzero.net (216.31.128.14) [AS 11509] 72 msec 76 msec 72 msec 12 mmic-gw.dcap6.lax.us.tierzero.net (216.31.188.94) [AS 11509] 76 msec 80 msec 80 msec 13 dazedandconfused.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.4) [AS 11509] 84 msec 84 msec 88 msec 14 portus.netsecdesign.com (66.6.208.6) [AS 11509] 84 msec 84 msec 88 msec
Next I will see pigs flying :) Wonder how long it will last based on Cogent's past behavior as noted here.
Edward Ray
------------------------------------------------------------- This mail was scanned by BitDefender For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct 31, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Bob Collie wrote:
That looks like a transit connection that Cogent bought at Ashburn, VA, not SFI peering connection.
Hrmm, I can't tell by looking at a traceroute who paid whom, if anyone. Care to explain your magic? Is there a code in the in- addrs? Perhaps "sl-$FOO" means something in Sprint-speak?
Yea, but most of xfer-nets in this case appear to be assigned by Cogent (then again, how does that make any difference for special buy|peer cases): 2 sl-st21-la-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.69) 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 3 p12-3.core01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.41) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 11 sprint.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.62) 12.032 ms 12.061 ms 12.103 ms 9 sprint.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.18) 21.964 ms 21.897 ms 21.756 ms Etc.. And comm tags from Sprint side look similar to other SFI's: 1239 174 144.228.241.81 from 144.228.241.81 (144.228.241.81) Origin IGP, metric 4294967294, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 1239:321 1239:1000 1239:1011 1239 209 144.228.241.81 from 144.228.241.81 (144.228.241.81) Origin IGP, metric 4294967294, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 1239:321 1239:1000 1239:1011
Anyone who thinks "X pays Y" is more important than any of the metrics above needs to reevaluate their priorities. (At least from a customer / engineering PoV. I wouldn't suggest $NETWORK's bean counters have the same priorities as their network engineers & customers. :)
IMHO, of course.
Indeed, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter these days :) james
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:51:47AM -0500, James Jun wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Bob Collie wrote:
That looks like a transit connection that Cogent bought at Ashburn, VA, not SFI peering connection.
Hrmm, I can't tell by looking at a traceroute who paid whom, if anyone. Care to explain your magic? Is there a code in the in- addrs? Perhaps "sl-$FOO" means something in Sprint-speak?
Yea, but most of xfer-nets in this case appear to be assigned by Cogent (then again, how does that make any difference for special buy|peer cases):
2 sl-st21-la-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.69) 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 3 p12-3.core01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.41) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec
customers have some say over whats what.. at least one of my transits is using a /30 we assign to be honest i'd be suspicious if 'most ' nets are from cogent as thats not indicative of an equal peering relationship they still buy from verio and they have /30s with them also: 58.13.54.154.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer verio.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com. (of course, that may be a peer port too.. this is all conjecture! as patrick says the adjacencys are the interesting thing, not the $$) Steve
Patrick W. Gilmore schrieb:
Hrmm, I can't tell by looking at a traceroute who paid whom, if anyone. Care to explain your magic? Is there a code in the in-addrs? Perhaps "sl-$FOO" means something in Sprint-speak?
Secondly, does anyone really give a rat's ass who is "SFI" any longer? There are at least 2 fully "SFI" networks who can't route half as well as a whole slew of non-SFI networks these days.
If [Cogent|Sprint] [buying|peering|whatever] [from|with] [Cogent|Sprint] makes their network better (i.e. lower latency, lower packet loss, higher throughput, and, if you care, lower jitter), I applaud them.
I heard some rumours at the Euro-IX forum last week. Fact: Deutsche Telekom 3320 is playing the power play currently not upgrading their peering interconnections in Europe. 174 is experiencing up to 30% packet loss versus 3320 in Europe, making customers suffer. This is first hand info (we are involved with some popular content site sending out up to 800MBps peak to German-speaking users, and appx. 1/3 is 3320). Think of 174 started to peer with 1239 and redirecting some outbound traffic to 3320 over this new peer. Since 3320 is buying from 1239, they will pay more to 1239, and 1239 accepts 174 as a new peer because they get more money from 3320 ... as mentioned, this is just a rumour I heard, but reading William B. Norton's theory (tactic #9), this would make sense. Fredy
Hi Fredy, kuenzler@init7.net (Fredy Kuenzler) wrote:
Think of 174 started to peer with 1239 and redirecting some outbound traffic to 3320 over this new peer. Since 3320 is buying from 1239, they will pay more to 1239, and 1239 accepts 174 as a new peer because they get more money from 3320 ... as mentioned, this is just a rumour I heard, but reading William B. Norton's theory (tactic #9), this would make sense.
In the very least it's eventually something to use to put pressure on those AS3320 guys. The idea is pretty smart ;) Elmar. -- "Hinken ist kein Mangel eines Vergleichs, sondern sollte als wesentliche Eigenschaft von Vergleichen angesehen werden." (Marius Fränzel in desd) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
participants (7)
-
Bob Collie -
Ed Ray -
Elmar K. Bins -
Fredy Kuenzler -
James Jun -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
steve＠telecomplete.co.uk