On Mon, 04 June 2001, "Moe Allen" wrote:
Affective this morning Cable & Wireless started de-peering with PSINET. More when I receive a reply from: peering.admin@cwusa.com
Since PSI still hosts one of the root servers (C.PSI.NET) C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, I hope C&W's customers understand the all ramifications of C&W's actions. Depending on the current state of the net, it may vary from a minor reduction in access to all possible servers to 1/13.
Well, I assumed PSI and/or C&W would have had some backup transit, if they were going to play that game, but... rt0-thny>sh ip bgp nei 204.6.117.234 rou | incl 3561 * 64.69.39.0/24 204.6.117.234 0 174 1239 11151 701 3561 14510 i * 192.234.68.0 204.6.117.234 550 0 174 3356 6983 3561 i * 193.194.153.0 204.6.117.234 0 174 1 11337 11337 11337 11337 11337 11337 701 3561 12976 8955 12500 i * 193.194.154.0 204.6.117.234 0 174 1 11337 11337 11337 11337 11337 11337 701 3561 12976 8955 12500 i * 194.44.189.0 204.6.117.234 0 174 5378 3561 12976 8592 6807 i * 194.44.234.0/23 204.6.117.234 0 174 5378 3561 12976 8592 6807 i * 194.79.108.0 204.6.117.234 0 174 3356 9057 15412 5536 5536 3561 i * 194.247.128.0/19 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 5378 3561 12976 6694 i * 195.42.128.0/19 204.6.117.234 0 174 1 11337 11337 11337 11337 11337 11337 701 3561 12976 8955 i * 200.2.32.0/19 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 200.40.0.0/20 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 200.40.16.0/21 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 200.40.24.0/22 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 200.40.28.0/22 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 200.40.32.0/19 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 200.40.80.0/20 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 200.50.128.0/20 204.6.117.234 0 174 3356 11908 3561 11269 11139 13856 i * 206.99.44.0/22 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 206.99.48.0/21 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 6057 i * 209.94.208.0 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 3356 11908 3561 5639 i * 212.5.224.0/19 204.6.117.234 450 0 174 5378 3561 12976 6694 i * 212.64.192.0/19 204.6.117.234 0 174 3356 11908 3561 5594 9121 i * 213.232.0.0/19 204.6.117.234 0 174 3356 9057 13126 9000 2548 3561 5594 9121 12296 12296 12296 i * 213.232.48.0/20 204.6.117.234 0 174 3356 9057 13126 9000 2548 3561 5594 9121 12296 12296 12296 i Looks like just a few oddments of routes leaking through... Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
Unless, of course, CW or PSI has transit connectivity from someone. Can someone on either network do a BGP lookup and see if they're seeing each other's routes, and if so, through whom? -C On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 01:27:48PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 04 June 2001, "Moe Allen" wrote:
Affective this morning Cable & Wireless started de-peering with PSINET. More when I receive a reply from: peering.admin@cwusa.com
Since PSI still hosts one of the root servers (C.PSI.NET) C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, I hope C&W's customers understand the all ramifications of C&W's actions.
Depending on the current state of the net, it may vary from a minor reduction in access to all possible servers to 1/13.
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
Once upon a time, Christopher A. Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com> said:
Unless, of course, CW or PSI has transit connectivity from someone. Can someone on either network do a BGP lookup and see if they're seeing each other's routes, and if so, through whom?
We're connected to C&W, AT&T, and Sprint: hsvcore#s ip b 38.0.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 402730 Paths: (2 available, best #2) Advertised to non peer-group peers: 216.180.95.209 216.180.116.1 216.180.119.54 1239 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.10.8) 216.180.119.54 from 216.180.119.54 (216.180.119.54) Origin IGP, metric 8, localpref 100, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate 7018 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.3.39), (received & used) 12.125.208.5 from 12.125.208.5 (12.123.21.247) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, atomic-aggregate, best No route to PSI through C&W. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Chris Adams wrote:
We're connected to C&W, AT&T, and Sprint:
hsvcore#s ip b 38.0.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 402730 Paths: (2 available, best #2) Advertised to non peer-group peers: 216.180.95.209 216.180.116.1 216.180.119.54 1239 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.10.8) 216.180.119.54 from 216.180.119.54 (216.180.119.54) Origin IGP, metric 8, localpref 100, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate 7018 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.3.39), (received & used) 12.125.208.5 from 12.125.208.5 (12.123.21.247) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, atomic-aggregate, best
No route to PSI through C&W. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
route-views.oregon-ix.net concurs: route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bgp regex ^3561_174_ route-views.oregon-ix.net> -travis
Looks like the peering is back up as of 21:28:00 EDT. I can not traceroute to c.root-servers.net (c.psi.net) them from a C&W Conencted Provider. Horray. Shane. ----------- Location THE UNITED STATES Problem Affected Resolution THE UNITED STATES restored connectivity to the peering router Began Sat Jun 2 05:00:00 2001 EDT Resolved Tue Jun 5 21:28:00 2001 EDT Ticket NETOPS-3553548
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, shane wrote:
Looks like the peering is back up as of 21:28:00 EDT.
I can not traceroute to c.root-servers.net (c.psi.net) them from a C&W
I meant "I can Now traceroute" oops.
Conencted Provider.
Horray.
Shane.
----------- Location THE UNITED STATES Problem Affected Resolution THE UNITED STATES restored connectivity to the peering router Began Sat Jun 2 05:00:00 2001 EDT Resolved Tue Jun 5 21:28:00 2001 EDT Ticket NETOPS-3553548
Doing a "traceroute -g <psinet ip> www.cw.net" returns !H - Jared On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:20:04PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
Unless, of course, CW or PSI has transit connectivity from someone. Can someone on either network do a BGP lookup and see if they're seeing each other's routes, and if so, through whom?
-C
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 01:27:48PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 04 June 2001, "Moe Allen" wrote:
Affective this morning Cable & Wireless started de-peering with PSINET. More when I receive a reply from: peering.admin@cwusa.com
Since PSI still hosts one of the root servers (C.PSI.NET) C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, I hope C&W's customers understand the all ramifications of C&W's actions.
Depending on the current state of the net, it may vary from a minor reduction in access to all possible servers to 1/13.
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
Unless, of course, CW or PSI has transit connectivity from someone. Can someone on either network do a BGP lookup and see if they're seeing each other's routes, and if so, through whom?
From a host I have access to on AS1290 (PSInet UK):
mike@somewhere$ traceroute www.cw.net traceroute: unknown host www.cw.net Trying to trace out by IP address gives !H on the first router with a full table. Oops. Now it gets interesting... Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Mike Hughes Sent: June 4, 2001 5:45 PM To: Christopher A. Woodfield Cc: Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: C&W Peering
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
From a host I have access to on AS1290 (PSInet UK):
mike@somewhere$ traceroute www.cw.net traceroute: unknown host www.cw.net
Trying to trace out by IP address gives !H on the first router with a full table.
Oops. Now it gets interesting...
It can get much more interesting if PSI/Sprint peering was to go down, since at least one provider (whom I won't name, but most people probably can guess who I'm talking about) with some large datacenters (and big customers in those datacenters) uses Sprint to reach PSI, probably ever since PSI attempted to charge the provider with the large datacenters for peering with them. (Another similar large datacenter provider uses Verio to reach PSI, I believe) I suppose now PSI gets to learn the hard way what happens when they scared half their peers away (to be polite...), and now find that a bunch of the other half are now turning down their PSI peering links. (BTW, has it been established here whether PSI or CW is to blame for this?) I really really hope that no one still resells PSI dialups, otherwise their tech support lines could be very very busy very soon. Oh, and FYI, a friend also in the UK using PSI reports the same thing you're reporting... no trace of the CW network from there. Vivien -- Vivien M. vivienm@dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
See PSINet's network status page (http://www.psi.com/cgi-bin/netstatus.pl5) for a possible answer. jas At 06:22 PM 6/4/01 -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
I suppose now PSI gets to learn the hard way what happens when they scared half their peers away (to be polite...), and now find that a bunch of the other half are now turning down their PSI peering links. (BTW, has it been established here whether PSI or CW is to blame for this?)
THE UNITED STATES and Offnet Connectivity Cable & Wireless chose to terminate connectivity with PSINet on 2June01. Over 90% of the traffic that used to be routed through C&W is now being routed via other means through our robust global free peering infrastructure. The remaining 10% or so represents C&W customers that have been deliberately cut off from PSINet by C&W. While PSINet is ready and willing to re-establish connectivity with C&W at any time, it is up to C&W to choose to reverse their previous decision. In the meantime, PSINet can offer services directly to those C&W customers that are affected. OK, PSI seems to assert that 90% of C&W networks are still accessable from PSI customers. NANOG research so far has determined that this is definitely *not* the case. If anyone has evidence to support PSI's claim, please post. Dear PSI: this may not be directly your fault, but dammit, own up to the scope of the issue. It's in your interest to take advantage of being the "good guy" for once, so don't ruin it by lying about the scope of the problem. I don't think that this is going to be solved by C&W reversing themselves; I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly. -C On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:18:48PM -0700, John Starta wrote:
See PSINet's network status page (http://www.psi.com/cgi-bin/netstatus.pl5) for a possible answer.
jas
At 06:22 PM 6/4/01 -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
I suppose now PSI gets to learn the hard way what happens when they scared half their peers away (to be polite...), and now find that a bunch of the other half are now turning down their PSI peering links. (BTW, has it been established here whether PSI or CW is to blame for this?)
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
-----Original Message----- From: Christopher A. Woodfield [mailto:rekoil@semihuman.com] Sent: June 4, 2001 7:55 PM To: John Starta Cc: Vivien M.; Mike Hughes; Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: C&W Peering
I don't think that this is going to be solved by C&W reversing themselves; I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly.
Is this the part where the people (eg: Exodus, AboveNet are the two I can think of immediately) who were forced to get themselves some transit because PSI wouldn't peer with them anymore go and laugh at the irony of C&W pulling a PSI on PSI themselves? Vivien -- Vivien M. vivienm@dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
Is this the part where the people (eg: Exodus, AboveNet are the two I can think of immediately) who were forced to get themselves some transit because PSI wouldn't peer with them anymore go and laugh at the irony of C&W pulling a PSI on PSI themselves?
I don't know about Abovenet, but when things when down between Exodus and PSI, my impression was that Exodus just got Sprint to carry the traffic. No new circuits, just a new path, and not a big deal because it was small amount of traffic (rumored to be <90Mb). Eric :)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Eric Gauthier Sent: June 4, 2001 8:41 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: C&W Peering
Is this the part where the people (eg: Exodus, AboveNet are the two I can think of immediately) who were forced to get themselves some transit because PSI wouldn't peer with them anymore go and laugh at the irony of C&W pulling a PSI on PSI themselves?
I don't know about Abovenet, but when things when down between Exodus and PSI, my impression was that Exodus just got Sprint to carry the traffic. No new circuits, just a new path, and not a big deal because it was small amount of traffic (rumored to be <90Mb).
AboveNet did the same deal with Verio instead of Sprint... and they're still doing it, too, just like Exodus is still using Sprint to reach PSI. I don't think the issue here is one of circuits or anything, it's more one of embarassment. AboveNet, PSI, and probably C&W (I'm not sure about Exodus... ironically enough, it's the only one of these that I use) all claim that they're "tier 1" networks. However, AboveNet has been forced to get Verio to provide transit to PSI because of this. That, technically, means that AboveNet is not a tier 1 by my definition (according to me, and probably most people on this list, a tier 1 is someone who has no transit from anyone). Now, PSI, which used to call itself "the Internet supercarrier" IIRC (ironically, until a year or two, maybe three, ago, also claimed their DS3 frame relay network was state of the art), may be forced to get someone to transit the 2.5 megabits (or is my guess too high?) of traffic to CW. It's not likely to be a big technical deal, but the irony I find to be quite prominent. First PSI forced others to make transit arrangements because of their greed, and now CW is possibly making PSI do the same, for probably the same motives. Vivien -- Vivien M. vivienm@dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
No, this is the part where I laugh at all of the people who told me this how wonderfully effecient Inter-provider settlement and 95th percentile billing are in the Internet today. Regards, James On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Vivien M. wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Christopher A. Woodfield [mailto:rekoil@semihuman.com] Sent: June 4, 2001 7:55 PM To: John Starta Cc: Vivien M.; Mike Hughes; Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: C&W Peering
I don't think that this is going to be solved by C&W reversing themselves; I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly.
Is this the part where the people (eg: Exodus, AboveNet are the two I can think of immediately) who were forced to get themselves some transit because PSI wouldn't peer with them anymore go and laugh at the irony of C&W pulling a PSI on PSI themselves?
Vivien -- Vivien M. vivienm@dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
Could you explain how the PSI/C&W peering fracas has /anything/ to do with Nth percentile billing? -C On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:42:01PM -0700, James Thomason wrote:
No, this is the part where I laugh at all of the people who told me this how wonderfully effecient Inter-provider settlement and 95th percentile billing are in the Internet today.
Regards, James
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
Could you explain how the PSI/C&W peering fracas has /anything/ to do with Nth percentile billing?
Sure, allow me to connect the dots. 1. The existence of common "peering" relationships can be attributed to the lack of any standard basis for a transaction in the Internet environment. 2. The existence of nTH percentile billing can be attributed to the lack of any standard basis for a transaction in the Internet environment. Therefore: 1. The PSI/CW scenario is a relfection of an inequitable relationship. Stand in awe of the effeciency. 2. nTH percentile billing is a reflection of a hierarchy of inequitable relationships. At least, thats my opinion. Regards, James
Uh. Why are you yelling at PSI when you have failed to do your own calculations? Perhaps they have taken data from archive.route-views.org to determine what the actual loss of connectivity was. I don't have the time to go out and validate the PSINet claims of how much of the net is gone for them and their (single-homed) customers. Perhaps someone who is more of a data processing person can go out and provide some interesting data, such as Number of ASNs single-homed (based on route-views data) Top 5/10/20/25 providers based on as-path Number of networks/ips/ASNs behind each of those top 5/10/20/25 that would be missing connectivity. - Jared On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:55:14PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
THE UNITED STATES and Offnet Connectivity Cable & Wireless chose to terminate connectivity with PSINet on 2June01. Over 90% of the traffic that used to be routed through C&W is now being routed via other means through our robust global free peering infrastructure. The remaining 10% or so represents C&W customers that have been deliberately cut off from PSINet by C&W. While PSINet is ready and willing to re-establish connectivity with C&W at any time, it is up to C&W to choose to reverse their previous decision. In the meantime, PSINet can offer services directly to those C&W customers that are affected.
OK, PSI seems to assert that 90% of C&W networks are still accessable from PSI customers. NANOG research so far has determined that this is definitely *not* the case. If anyone has evidence to support PSI's claim, please post.
Dear PSI: this may not be directly your fault, but dammit, own up to the scope of the issue. It's in your interest to take advantage of being the "good guy" for once, so don't ruin it by lying about the scope of the problem.
I don't think that this is going to be solved by C&W reversing themselves; I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly.
-C
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:18:48PM -0700, John Starta wrote:
See PSINet's network status page (http://www.psi.com/cgi-bin/netstatus.pl5) for a possible answer.
jas
At 06:22 PM 6/4/01 -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
I suppose now PSI gets to learn the hard way what happens when they scared half their peers away (to be polite...), and now find that a bunch of the other half are now turning down their PSI peering links. (BTW, has it been established here whether PSI or CW is to blame for this?)
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:55:14PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly.
I know almost nothing about bankruptcy, so I would love for someone who does to comment. Put simply, if a company can't pay its creditors and suppliers do they have any chance of entering into a new purchase agreement? I know that I personally wouldn't offer them Net-30 payment terms right now. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
At 08:51 PM 6/4/2001 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I know almost nothing about bankruptcy, so I would love for someone who does to comment. Put simply, if a company can't pay its creditors and suppliers do they have any chance of entering into a new purchase agreement? I know that I personally wouldn't offer them Net-30 payment terms right now.
actually, this is an interesting point. normally in bankruptcy, vendors for the bankrupt outfit are not permitted to terminate services. now a true peering agreement isn't a vendor/customer relationship, but it is interesting to consider how a bankruptcy court might see it. C&W has done some level of damage (how much is uncertain) to a company in bankruptcy, and there was probably some written agreement with the force of a contract between the two. i bet this ends up in court more or less immediately. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking -- Network Engineering, Software Development http://www.averillpark.net/ 518-573-7592
Any post filing expenses incurred (i.e. new contracts or payments due current service providers for services provided after filing) must be approved by the court and then they are given the highest priority for payment, even above secured interests in the bankrupt entity. -vb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:51 PM Subject: Re: C&W Peering
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:55:14PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly.
I know almost nothing about bankruptcy, so I would love for someone who does to comment. Put simply, if a company can't pay its creditors and suppliers do they have any chance of entering into a new purchase agreement? I know that I personally wouldn't offer them Net-30 payment terms right now.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Combine the loss of C.ROOT and the loss to E.ROOT for their loss of peering to NASA that happened last week and will hapen again in a few weeks and they may have many issues related to this decision. On 4 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 04 June 2001, "Moe Allen" wrote:
Affective this morning Cable & Wireless started de-peering with PSINET. More when I receive a reply from: peering.admin@cwusa.com
Since PSI still hosts one of the root servers (C.PSI.NET) C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, I hope C&W's customers understand the all ramifications of C&W's actions.
Depending on the current state of the net, it may vary from a minor reduction in access to all possible servers to 1/13.
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Michael Whisenant wrote:
Combine the loss of C.ROOT and the loss to E.ROOT for their loss of peering to NASA that happened last week and will happen again in a few weeks and they may have many issues related to this decision.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious but I can't help wondering why given the redundancy of the DNS system the loss of connectivity to 2 or 3 root-servers should have a significant effect on an ISP who is otherwise well connected and probably has a low latency/loss link to at least 2-3 of the remaining root DNS servers Anyone care to enlighten me ? Thanks - Rafi
participants (17)
-
Chris Adams -
Christopher A. Woodfield -
Eric Gauthier -
James Thomason -
Jared Mauch -
John Starta -
Leo Bicknell -
Michael Whisenant -
Mike Hughes -
Rafi Sadowsky -
Richard Welty -
Sean Donelan -
shane -
Simon Lockhart -
Travis Pugh -
Vincent J. Bono -
Vivien M.