) by bach.merit.edu (MOS 3.8.2-GA) with ESMTP id ADV30699; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (turing-police.cc.vt.edu [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l6CFr3ui002870; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:53:03 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: "Security Admin (NetSec)" <secadmin@netsecdesign.com> Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu> Subject: Re: Level(3) faux paux In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:56:32 PDT." <8D870AB38C30EC4C848A11A3F83D20D8060A3EF41A@exchange2007.mmicmanhom enet.local> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <8D870AB38C30EC4C848A11A3F83D20D8060A3EF41A@exchange2007.mmicmanhome net.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1184255583_3357P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:53:03 -0400 Message-ID: <2869.1184255583@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu X-Loop: nanog X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mozart.merit.edu X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A090209.46964ED9.0113:SCGAP167720,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=198.108.1.26, so=2006-09-22 03:48:54, dmn=5.3.14/2007-05-31 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2 --==_Exmh_1184255583_3357P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:56:32 PDT, "Security Admin (NetSec)" said:

Am unsure whether or not this is a mis-statement, but based on NANOG posts, Level(3) [AS3356] seems to show up mor=e often with issues than say Sprint [AS1239].

How many places does AS3356 connect with other AS's, and how many places does AS1239 connec with other stuff? I'd expects an AS with 500 interchange points would have 25% more whoopsies than one with 400 interchanges even if they were otherwise equivalent. Another factor would be number of miles of fiber their net is run over - If backhoes per mile is a constant, a 3,000 mile link is more likely to be hit than one half as long, and so on. Or maybe Level3's network is more openly visible from outside, so it's easier to tell that they are the source of a problem than a net that's not easily debugged from outside the AS (leaving you wondering if it's them or somebody on the other side of them). Or maybe past experience has shown that the two have the same *actual* failure rate, but asking for a Level3 help is more likely to actually get you a clueful *and* helpful engineer. Plus, I don't think *any* provider gets mentioned enough on NANOG to be able to draw any realistic statistical inferences. The short-form highly inaccurate handwave is that you'd need *two* providers and at least 20-30 datapoints on *each* to draw conclusions - which would probably take you 2-3 years to collect, and at that point, changing management policies at both providers will render your results inaccurate (you'd be comparing 3-year old data to current). --==_Exmh_1184255583_3357P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFGlk5fcC3lWbTT17ARAmk/AKCZXnSlaByL67fgcrcq9UwoxVFPwQCg8Oew rHXmKfeD0Mllu5T/6JqeqMw= =HeQA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1184255583_3357P--