I think this is pretty simple. Its just that the closest city to you where ATT and XO peer is Chicago. If they peered in Dallas, it would a whole lot better. I get this all the time, not as bad as this, going to sites across town (LA) when a trace regularly goes via San Jose and back. I guess the Internet isnt as inter-networked as it could be, and less and less so seemingly. The old idea of mutual peering being good for the net etc seems firmly dead nowadays. jm
-----Original Message----- From: brett watson [mailto:brett@the-watsons.org] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:38 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: remember the "diameter of the internet"?
i sit behind cox-cable service at home, and in troubleshooting why my connectivity is *so* horrible, i find the following traceroute. does anyone do any sane routing anymore? does diameter matter (we used to talk about it a long, long while ago). i guess i'm just old and crusty but this seems to violate so many natural laws.
i find in more random testing that i seem to be a minimum of 15 hops from anything, and it's not just the # of hops, it's the *paths* i travel. bouncing between two cities several times, on several different provider networks, from one border to the other.
wow.
-b
traceroute www.caida.org
1 10.113.128.1 30 unavailable 2 68.2.6.25 10 ip68-2-6-25.ph.ph.cox.net 3 68.2.0.26 40 ip68-2-0-26.ph.ph.cox.net 4 68.2.0.18 50 ip68-2-0-18.ph.ph.cox.net 5 68.2.0.10 20 ip68-2-0-10.ph.ph.cox.net 6 68.2.0.70 10 ip68-2-0-70.ph.ph.cox.net 7 68.2.14.13 10 chnddsrc02-gew0303.rd.ph.cox.net 8 68.1.0.168 20 chndbbrc02-pos0101.rd.ph.cox.net 9 68.1.0.146 30 dllsbbrc01-pos0102.rd.dl.cox.net 10 12.119.145.125 40 unavailable 11 12.123.17.54 30 gbr6-p30.dlstx.ip.att.net 12 12.122.5.86 51 gbr4-p90.dlstx.ip.att.net 13 12.122.2.114 80 gbr2-p30.kszmo.ip.att.net 14 12.122.1.93 50 gbr1-p60.kszmo.ip.att.net 15 12.122.2.42 70 gbr4-p40.sl9mo.ip.att.net 16 12.122.2.205 60 gbr3-p40.cgcil.ip.att.net 17 12.123.5.145 60 ggr1-p360.cgcil.ip.att.net 18 207.88.50.253 90 unavailable 19 64.220.0.189 80 ge5-3-1.RAR1.Chicago-IL.us.xo.net 20 65.106.1.86 70 p0-0-0-0.RAR2.Chicago-IL.us.xo.net 21 65.106.0.34 60 p1-0-0.RAR1.Dallas-TX.us.xo.net 22 65.106.0.14 120 p6-0-0.RAR2.LA-CA.us.xo.net 23 64.220.0.99 80 ge1-0.dist1.lax-ca.us.xo.net 24 206.111.14.238 211 a2-0d2.dist1.sdg-ca.us.xo.net 25 209.31.222.150 80 unavailable 26 198.17.46.56 140 pinot.sdsc.edu 27 192.172.226.123 91 cider.caida.org
[ On Monday, June 17, 2002 at 14:56:36 (-0700), Mansey, Jon wrote: ]
Subject: RE: remember the "diameter of the internet"?
I think this is pretty simple. Its just that the closest city to you where ATT and XO peer is Chicago. If they peered in Dallas, it would a whole lot better.
....and maybe if they peered in LA then XO's conjested link between Dallas and LA might be avoided..... :-)
I get this all the time, not as bad as this, going to sites across town (LA) when a trace regularly goes via San Jose and back.
I guess the Internet isnt as inter-networked as it could be, and less and less so seemingly.
You should try looking at things from some less connected country! ;-) Even from up here in Toronto things can look decidedly silly at times. The worst was recently when most of my packets came and went via Chicago, then Vancouver, and then back to New York, or some such ludicrous route. At least in that case it wasn't too hard to convince someone that something was wrong (since the packets in that case traversed that person's cross-country links only to bounce off the router at the far end and come all the way back over the same circuit). Now my packets only go to Chicago and back in order to make the round trip across the downtown core.
The old idea of mutual peering being good for the net etc seems firmly dead nowadays.
"I'm a Tier-One transit provider -- I only sell transit! You need to be just like me in order to peer with me, and you need to exchange gigabits of traffic with me in every exchange I'm connected into. Good luck meeting my requirements! Meanwhile would you like to pay port and access charges to reach my other customers instead?", and then there's the "we don't peer with customers" tactic -- as if they have _only_ other transit networks as customers, though oddly ARIN often disagrees with their view of things.... -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098; <gwoods@acm.org>; <g.a.woods@ieee.org>; <woods@robohack.ca> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:
"I'm a Tier-One transit provider -- I only sell transit! You need to be just like me in order to peer with me, and you need to exchange gigabits of traffic with me in every exchange I'm connected into. Good luck meeting my requirements! Meanwhile would you like to pay port and access charges to reach my other customers instead?", and then there's the "we don't peer with customers" tactic -- as if they have _only_ other transit networks as customers, though oddly ARIN often disagrees with their view of things....
PSI (back before they went belly up) was even better with their "free peering" bait-n-switch. I looked into that, and they'd run a T1 to us for free peering, but I didn't think that would cut it. I wanted at least frac-T3 if we were going to peer. Well...frac-T3 peering wasn't available in the city we wanted to peer in, but they offered to sell us frac-T3 transit there. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
participants (3)
-
jlewis＠lewis.org -
Mansey, Jon -
woods＠weird.com