RE: Operational impact of depeering
-- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan@verisign.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Vest Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:46 AM To: Nanog Mailing list Cc: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com Subject: Re: Operational impact of depeering
On Oct 10, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or contractual ramifications.
Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month?
Aside from anything else, there is this interesting topic on the agenda: Abstract: NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering Networks Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick, Sonic.net
Seems to me that a discussion of traffic analysis could handle a slide or two on actual impacts of this depeering.
--Michael Dillon
Here's one way of looking at it: (copied below b/c the list is not publicly archived)
TV
From: Tom Vest <tvest@pch.net> Date: October 8, 2005 6:00:32 PM EDT To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM- L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] [ misc fyi ] internet "peering" breaking down (fwd)
Okay now that the flap is over and I have a few minutes to spare, I'll bite.
On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Peter R. wrote:
Your passionate response deserves a response:
It's not very small indeed.
Compared to what?
On 10/1/05, Cogent's network (AS174 -- a very old network) originated the equivalent of 1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the "ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05% at that point in time.
Note: numbers are derived from the Route Views archive: http://archive.routeviews.org/oix-route-views/2005.10/oix-full- snapshot-2005-10-01-0000.dat.bz2.
In an RFC 1930/2270 compliant world, 99% of networks downstream of either disputant have other, unaffected upstreams, so presumably they don't lose reachability to anyone.
Maybe there are 1b Internet users worldwide, and maybe they are distributed roughly in proportion to the distribution of Internet production. So maybe 5% of the world population as affected by the dispute -- roughly 5m users.
Anti-Level(3)? The only fact in this was the route view count, and even that could be wrong. Not a very fair comparison, especially to make to regulatory people who may not know better. AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition. You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for them being old school. Cogent is not old school. -M<
"Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com> writes:
On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Peter R. wrote:
On 10/1/05, Cogent's network (AS174 -- a very old network) originated the equivalent of 1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the "ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05% at that point in time.
AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition. You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for them being old school. Cogent is not old school.
AS174 predates PSI; it was NYSERNet's AS. The hows and whys of PSI retaining it when they were no longer under exclusive contract to run NYSERNet (starting in 1992) probably boiled down to who found it more painful to re-AS their network. I'll leave detailed commentary to people who were actually on the inside at the time, if any of them still read nanog. Cole? Mitch? :) ---Rob
On Oct 10, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Anti-Level(3)? The only fact in this was the route view count, and even that could be wrong. Not a very fair comparison, especially to make to regulatory people who may not know better.
How in the world does this read as anti-Level3? What precisely is unfair about the comparison? Concrete suggestions about how to make a fairer comparison, independently, using public domain information, would be welcome.
AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition. You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for them being old school. Cogent is not old school.
The implication I was making (maybe too subtly) was that counting this way involves some obvious error terms, one of which is age of allocation -- meaning specifically, address allocation policies in effect at the time that the relevant netblocks were allocated. Scale, a.k.a. host density might be another obvious one. What I meant to suggest was that this method might overstate Cogent's significance. However I was wrong. I was thinking of the vintage 1991 PSI "Class A" that Cogent still routes. I should have said "both old networks," given L3's two even older BBN "Class As." But if age tends to suggest a certain (freedom of) slack in utilization, then that would mean that the count actually overstates L3's operational significance. So, does that correction makes it less biased -- or more Anti-Level3? TV
participants (3)
-
Hannigan, Martin -
Robert E.Seastrom -
Tom Vest