Re: Network for Sale
nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer) writes:
Beyond that, I'm _REALLY_ sick of people pissing and moaning about NAPS being congestion points. If you're so tired of the exchange point being slow, INVEST IN MAKING IT FASTER!!!!! ...
That's what PAIX did. And Equinix for that matter. Exchange points aren't slow, though I admit that some of the ATM-based exchanges have hit their scaling limit. Exchange points based on Ethernet with rich PNI opportunities literally do not have scaling limits. The existence of the OPTIX/SAVVIS/InterNAP model isn't an an indictment of exchange points so much as it is of the routing system itself. However, bloating the global routing table with lots of discontiguous subnets isn't a workable solution. These networks need backbones and rich peering so they can negotiate deaggregation with just those peers who want the detail. Otherwise they're just value-added resellers of other networks who DO have backbones and rich private peering. (Which is what MIBH was, so I'm aware of the customer-perceived benefits in the value being added -- the difference is that MIBH was honest about it.)
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001, Paul Vixie wrote:
nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer) writes:
Beyond that, I'm _REALLY_ sick of people pissing and moaning about NAPS being congestion points. If you're so tired of the exchange point being slow, INVEST IN MAKING IT FASTER!!!!! ...
That's what PAIX did. And Equinix for that matter. Exchange points aren't slow, though I admit that some of the ATM-based exchanges have hit their scaling limit. Exchange points based on Ethernet with rich PNI opportunities literally do not have scaling limits.
I'm curious - has anyone performed a study of the BGP convergence times at NAPs? I mean, all those private interconnects are good and fine and all, but with the existing BGP implementations in vendor equipment today, I can see the BGP convergence as this big matrix of relationships of BGP performance of peers routers. On the same breath, why aren't people using route-servers at NAPs? Adrian -- Adrian Chadd "Romance novel?" <adrian@creative.net.au> "Girl Porn." - http://www.sinfest.net/d/20010202.html
> Why aren't people using route-servers at NAPs? Some of us are. Merit, PCH, and CIX all have production route-servers that people actually use. Not a vast number of folks, but every little bit helps stability. -Bill
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On the same breath, why aren't people using route-servers at NAPs?
We had a route-server at LINX. However, they were taken down because of lack of interest. People just wanted to manage their own BGP config, and didn't go for a third party being in the loop in a big way. A RIPE NCC RIS collector box has now taken the place of the route server at LINX, and as I recall, more people peer with that than they did the route server. Mike
Hi Folks, About three weeks ago, I sent an email to the .us domain registry (now Verisign), asking for some information that I couldn't get through their web site. After 3.5 weeks, I got an email saying "check our web site," and their phone number is nothing more than a tape saying "send us email." Does anybody have any ideas on how to reach a real human being over there? Thanks much, Miles Fidelman ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **************************************************************************
Yeah, respond to all the spamming they've been doing of .us admins. I saw them answer their spam...............to everyone they spammed. -M At 11:13 AM 2/20/2001 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Hi Folks,
About three weeks ago, I sent an email to the .us domain registry (now Verisign), asking for some information that I couldn't get through their web site. After 3.5 weeks, I got an email saying "check our web site," and their phone number is nothing more than a tape saying "send us email."
Does anybody have any ideas on how to reach a real human being over there?
Thanks much,
Miles Fidelman
************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html
Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **************************************************************************
Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan@fugawi.net Fugawi Networks Engineering Boston, MA http://www.fugawi.net Ph: 617.742.2693 Fax: 617.742.2300
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:41:58 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On the same breath, why aren't people using route-servers at NAPs?
There are probably three reasons: 1. People don't understand the concept of the route servers. They know about setting up a traditional peering, though. 2. People worry (justifiably) of black-holing traffic because the route server assumes that all of it's peers have the same reachability to it as they do to each other. This is normally the case, but there are several cases of failures at NAPS where this was not the case. Al were transitory, but they did result in loss of traffic. At least One major provider refuses to use RSes for this reason. 3. People do not maintain their routing policies in the IRR causing the route servers to not advertise routes that they should. I spoke with the NOC of a "tier-1" which used the RAs at NAPs but had not updated it's policy in YEARS! They had picked up a few customers since then and the route servers were advertising less than 10% of the routes the provider was carrying. Makes a RS peering pretty useless. nd there have actually been many such cases. Take a look at http://www.rsng.net/rs-views/. Pick a route server and then a participant with a non-zero number of peers exported to. Check the number of "grey" routes vs. the number of "green" routes. Grey routes are those not in the provider's policy. Green ones are. For MANY providers, the number of grey routes exceeds the number of green route. This makes use of the route servers at least a bit problematic. We have switched several peers to direct peering for this last reason. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
participants (7)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Bill Woodcock -
Kevin Oberman -
Martin Hannigan -
Mike Hughes -
Miles Fidelman -
Paul Vixie