Re: Peering versus Transit
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 09:01:14 +0100 From: "Alex.Bligh" <amb@xara.net>
And of course, to be in a position to "dump data" on a router at an exchange, one must have one's own router there peering with *somebody*, right?
You needn't peer with anyone
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 w.x.y.z
will do the trick nicely if you aren't carrying full routing.
Er, why did the exchange operator let you put a router on their switching fabric if you're not peering there with somebody? Are there actual cases of people with routers at NAPs/MAEs/xIXs who don't peer with anyone? Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Barney Wolff wrote:
Er, why did the exchange operator let you put a router on their switching fabric if you're not peering there with somebody? Are there actual cases of people with routers at NAPs/MAEs/xIXs who don't peer with anyone?
It's possible that the fabric on which EP is built is used for other purposes. For example, Ameritech NAP runs on the same ATM switch that a research VPN called MREN runs on. -dorian
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Dorian R. Kim wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Barney Wolff wrote:
Er, why did the exchange operator let you put a router on their switching fabric if you're not peering there with somebody? Are there actual cases of people with routers at NAPs/MAEs/xIXs who don't peer with anyone?
It's possible that the fabric on which EP is built is used for other purposes. For example, Ameritech NAP runs on the same ATM switch that a research VPN called MREN runs on.
Of course, it should be pointed out that most NAP operaters distance themselves from peering agreements and so have no explicit knowledge whether NAP participants are peering with each other or not, and do not believe it is appropriate for them to inquire into such. NAP operators provide the facilities, but whatever the customers do with those facilities is up to them. -dorian
Dorian R. Kim writes:
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Dorian R. Kim wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Barney Wolff wrote:
Er, why did the exchange operator let you put a router on their switching fabric if you're not peering there with somebody? Are there actual cases of people with routers at NAPs/MAEs/xIXs who don't peer with anyone?
It's possible that the fabric on which EP is built is used for other purposes. For example, Ameritech NAP runs on the same ATM switch that a research VPN called MREN runs on.
Of course, it should be pointed out that most NAP operaters distance themselves from peering agreements and so have no explicit knowledge whether NAP participants are peering with each other or not, and do not believe it is appropriate for them to inquire into such. NAP operators provide the facilities, but whatever the customers do with those facilities is up to them.
It's a really bad decision. It saves the cost of hiring a real engineer, but who wants to see a repeat of MAE-East? IXPs need a real traffic cop, at the very least, to wreak havoc on people who play nasty link-layer games. (Yes, it's conceivable that everyone on the IXP could guard themselves, but this is highly inefficient both in dollars and hours spent.) That's why we have refused to connect to MAE-NY at this time. BTW, although I may be flogging this issue, having a "traffic cop" at an IXP would make it a *hell* of a lot easier to track down, say, a SYN flooder once you worked backwards to the IXP from the attacked host. /a
Hi Alexis,
It's a really bad decision. It saves the cost of hiring a real engineer, but who wants to see a repeat of MAE-East? IXPs need a real traffic cop, at the very least, to wreak havoc on people who play nasty link-layer games. (Yes, it's conceivable that everyone on the IXP could guard themselves, but this is highly inefficient both in dollars and hours spent.)
It would seem to me that you've two rather positive choices -> Elect the Routing Arbiter (Hi Bill :-) to police the XPs, or through capitalism force the XP operators to implement such a service. The former would be difficult as the're A/ overworked, and B/ officially powerless at the XPs (unless the XPs annoint them, which is highly suspect). The latter would be difficult in light of a Robert Heinlein quote: " If you give the people the ability to vote themselves bread and circuses, they will. " The market is used to cheap/low quality. While physically the XPs meet most quality levels (arguable), they haven't an interest in layer 4 or above (just L8 and especially not L9). Were the market to change (it might) we could have this. Or, one could create another market. Several smallerish XPs (StLouiX) comes to mind, have high quality peering standards built into them. I believe the CIX has done a fairly good job at this in the past. But, it's my opinion that the only way to get MFS/PB/SL/AADS to listen is with the pocketbook. -alan
Alan Hannan writes:
[Alexis writes:]
It's a really bad decision. It saves the cost of hiring a real engineer, but who wants to see a repeat of MAE-East? IXPs need a real traffic cop, at the very least, to wreak havoc on people who play nasty link-layer games. (Yes, it's conceivable that everyone on the IXP could guard themselves, but this is highly inefficient both in dollars and hours spent.)
It would seem to me that you've two rather positive choices -> Elect the Routing Arbiter (Hi Bill :-) to police the XPs, or through capitalism force the XP operators to implement such a service.
The former would be difficult as the're A/ overworked, and B/ officially powerless at the XPs (unless the XPs annoint them, which is highly suspect). The latter would be difficult in light of a Robert Heinlein quote:
" If you give the people the ability to vote themselves bread and circuses, they will. "
(Heh. I remember that quote.) You've pretty much repeated my point...
Were the market to change (it might) we could have this. Or, one could create another market. Several smallerish XPs (StLouiX) comes to mind, have high quality peering standards built into them. I believe the CIX has done a fairly good job at this in the past.
But, it's my opinion that the only way to get MFS/PB/SL/AADS to listen is with the pocketbook.
Thus my decision. I think I'm going to tackle this one myself soon. I've given it a *lot* of thought. /a
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Barney Wolff wrote:
Er, why did the exchange operator let you put a router on their switching fabric if you're not peering there with somebody? Are there actual cases of people with routers at NAPs/MAEs/xIXs who don't peer with anyone?
Well yes, MFS has let a few people at MAE-East who did not have any peering, but that was more because MFS was able to sell something the customer had no clue about. MFS then let them out of the contract. There are also providers that have only small number of peers and then dump the rest of the data at some peer without them knowing. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Barney Wolff wrote:
Er, why did the exchange operator let you put a router on their switching fabric if you're not peering there with somebody? Are there actual cases of people with routers at NAPs/MAEs/xIXs who don't peer with anyone?
Sorry, I did not answer this fully in my last post. They do it because they want the $5,700 a month for the connection into the gigaswitch. They don't care if you have any peering at all. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
Well, they say they care - they say they make everyone tell them who they're peering with (at least one player) to get into the NAP, but I don't know that they really check that. Avi
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Barney Wolff wrote:
Er, why did the exchange operator let you put a router on their switching fabric if you're not peering there with somebody? Are there actual cases of people with routers at NAPs/MAEs/xIXs who don't peer with anyone?
Sorry, I did not answer this fully in my last post. They do it because they want the $5,700 a month for the connection into the gigaswitch. They don't care if you have any peering at all.
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
participants (6)
-
alan＠mindvision.com -
Alexis Rosen -
Avi Freedman -
Barney Wolff -
Dorian R. Kim -
Nathan Stratton