Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?
Why do some companies like Cogent get depeered relatively often and companies like Teleglobe don't even get talked about and operate in silence free from depeering? -- Hyundai to launch the i20 in India. Catch the exclusive preview on ZigWheels.com http://www.zigwheels.com/b2cam/newsDetails.action?name=Emb11_20080731&path=/INDT/News/Emb11_20080731&page=1&pagecount=2&utm_source=indmail&utm_medium=footer&utm_content=tracking&utm_campaign=Nletter_07oct2008_ZW
Re: BBC Contact
On Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 10:08:06PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If there is anyone from the BBC ip/peering dept here, please could they > contact me offlist concerning a problem we have? [EMAIL PROTECTED] should reach the right people. Let me know if you get no response from that address and I can prod people. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director|* Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
BBC Contact
Hello, If there is anyone from the BBC ip/peering dept here, please could they contact me offlist concerning a problem we have? Thanks, Chris
Re: Sprint / Cogent
> So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Karma. brandon
Re: Another driver for v6?
ever heard of the concept "open market" ipv4 address space delegations will just move from the rirs to places like ebay, problem solved. most of it is unused anyway (milnet, amateur radio ranges, etc) -- HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis, MP. Minister of Telecommunications, Republic CyberBunker. Phone: +49/163-4405069 Phone: +49/30-36731425 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote: > David W. Hankins wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:41:01AM -0600, Mike Lewinski wrote: > >>> This is a sound evolutionary tactic lemmings use. =) > >> I know this is way OT, but I can't let it pass. The lemming suicide myth > >> was created by a very questionable Walt Disney documentary: > > > > This is also way OT, but I was actually thinking more of Lemmings(TM), > > the video game, as I am not really very familiar with rodents. > > > > We've already got sixxs and hurricane electric set as tunnel lemmings, > > we can get through the IPv4 address shortfall by setting a variety of > > other ISP's to explode and build bridges... > > For the end-users who use those services, I am pretty sure it is more > the user playing the game (aka the services providing guidance), than > being the lemmings who just keep on running and commit suicide (aka the > networks who are not moving, getting experience and doing something). > > Greets, > Jeroen > (Who still ranks Lemmings(tm) as one of the top games ever, >simple and way too much fun, Amiga Lemmings X-mas special anyone? :) ) > >
Re: Sprint / Cogent
Sent from my iPhone On 31 okt 2008, at 19.05, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting : [snip] While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amazed at the US gov't self-delusion that they can somehow regulate something like the Internet. End of day, regulation will just make things more difficult, it will not actually change the way networks make decisions. But we all knew that. If the eu attempt at regulating last mile copper acces prices is to serve as example I doubt regulation of interconnects will be for the better... - kurtis -
Deadline extension: ICNS 2009 + 1st Workshop LMPCNAP | April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain
Note that the deadline for ICNS 2009 + 1st Workshop LMPCNAP has been extended to November 10. We would like to make ICNS 2009 a primary reference event. Please consider to contribute to and/or forward to the appropriate groups the following opportunity to submit and publish original scientific results. Please note that extended versions of highly ranked papers will be invited for journals submission. Full contributions are expected by the submission deadline. === ICNS 2009 + 1st Workshop LMPCNAP | Call for Papers === CALL FOR PAPERS, TUTORIALS, PANELS - ICNS 2009, The Fifth International Conference on Networking and Services April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain General page: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/ICNS09.html Call for Papers: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPICNS09.html - The first International Workshop on Learning Methodologies and Platforms used in the Cisco Networking Academy Program (CNAP), LMPCNAP 2009 will be held during ICNS 2009 in April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain General page: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/LMPCNAP.html Important deadlines: Submission (full paper) November 10, 2008 Authors notification December 5, 2008 Registration December 20, 2008 Camera ready December 25, 2008 Submissions will be peer-reviewed, published by IEEE CS Press, posted in IEEE Digital Library, and indexed with the major indexes. Extended versions of selected papers will be published in IARIA Journals: http://www.iariajournals.org Please note the Poster Forum special submission with on progress and challenging ideas. ICNS 2009 Area Tracks are the following (details in the CfP on site): ENCOT: Emerging Network Communications and Technologies COMAN: Network Control and Management SERVI: Multi-technology service deployment and assurance NGNUS: Next Generation Networks and Ubiquitous Services MPQSI: Multi Provider QoS/SLA Internetworking GRIDNS: Grid Networks and Services EDNA: Emergency Services and Disaster Recovery of Networks and Applications IPv6DFI: Deploying the Future Infrastructure IPDy: Internet Packet Dynamics GOBS: GRID over Optical Burst Switching Networks = - ICNS General Chair Jaime Lloret Mauri, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain - ICNS 2009 Industry Chairs Kevin Y Ung, Boeing, USA Leo Lehmann, OFCOM, Switzerland Francisco Javier Sánchez, Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF), Spain - ICNS 2009 Technical Program Committee Chair Giancarlo Fortino, Università della Calabria, Italy Salvador Sales, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain Feng Xia, Queensland University of Technology, Australia / Zhejiang University, China - ICNS Advisory Chairs Wojciech Burakowski, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland Vicente Casares, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain Petre Dini, Cisco Systems, Inc., USA / Concordia University, Canada Xiaohua Jia, City University of Hong Kong - Kowloon, Hong Kong Manuel Sierra-Pérez, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain - LMPCNAP 2009 General Chair Rafael Tomas, Mediterranean Cisco Academy Training Center (CATC), Spain - LMPCNAP 2009 Technical Program Commitee chair Prof. Tomeu Serra, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain
Weekly Routing Table Report
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 01 Nov, 2008 Report Website: http://thyme.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 272468 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 131440 Deaggregation factor: 2.07 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 132812 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 29655 Prefixes per ASN: 9.19 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 25822 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 12567 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:3833 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 79 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.6 Max AS path length visible: 25 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 3816) 15 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 551 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 198 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 61 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 8 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:198 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1919227072 Equivalent to 114 /8s, 101 /16s and 20 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 51.8 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 62.5 Percentage of available address space allocated: 82.8 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 74.0 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 134099 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:62538 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 23309 APNIC Deaggregation factor:2.68 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 59466 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:26845 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:3429 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 17.34 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:920 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:532 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:3.6 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 380054176 Equivalent to 22 /8s, 167 /16s and 42 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 80.9 APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079 APNIC Address Blocks58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:123152 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:64896 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.90 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:92700 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 35162 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:12558 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 7.38 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:4858 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:1191 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.3 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 368557728 Equivalent to 21 /8s, 247 /16s and 190 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 75.8 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153
Re: Sprint / Cogent
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting : [snip] While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amazed at the US gov't self-delusion that they can somehow regulate something like the Internet. End of day, regulation will just make things more difficult, it will not actually change the way networks make decisions. But we all knew that. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Sprint / Cogent
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote: We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time, we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent. Randy, This brings up something I've always wondered. Why do we have public depeerings, rather than public deprefings? You'd think both sides could at least agree to set localpref to 1, and not send each other anything that they don't absolutely have to until they resolve their issues. Bypass them if at all possible, but don't partition the interwebs. Or am I dreaming of ponies again? Dreaming. If Sprint is upset that Cogent is sending Sprint much more traffic than Sprint is sending Cogent, how does Sprint sending Cogent even less traffic (and making the ratio even worse) help Sprint? Why would Cogent care? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Sprint / Cogent
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote: > We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time, > we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent. Randy, This brings up something I've always wondered. Why do we have public depeerings, rather than public deprefings? You'd think both sides could at least agree to set localpref to 1, and not send each other anything that they don't absolutely have to until they resolve their issues. Bypass them if at all possible, but don't partition the interwebs. Or am I dreaming of ponies again? --msa
RE: Sprint / Cogent
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys published an article today on his blog regarding this subject: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml An aside, WV Fiber (AS19151) is currently partitioned from Cogent since AS19151 only contracts with Sprint for transit and is settlement-free with the rest of its peers. As previously reported, late last year, Cogent depeered AS19151 for unknown reasons. Up until yesterday, this wasn't much of a problem. Now unfortunately, the two networks (AS19151 and AS174) are partitioned. Any single homed WV Fiber customer and any single homed Cogent customer can not reach each other. WV Fiber hosts over 7 million eyeballs and many networks under its AS. We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time, we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent. Regards, Randy Epstein President WV Fiber
Re: Another driver for v6?
David W. Hankins wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:41:01AM -0600, Mike Lewinski wrote: >>> This is a sound evolutionary tactic lemmings use. =) >> I know this is way OT, but I can't let it pass. The lemming suicide myth >> was created by a very questionable Walt Disney documentary: > > This is also way OT, but I was actually thinking more of Lemmings(TM), > the video game, as I am not really very familiar with rodents. > > We've already got sixxs and hurricane electric set as tunnel lemmings, > we can get through the IPv4 address shortfall by setting a variety of > other ISP's to explode and build bridges... For the end-users who use those services, I am pretty sure it is more the user playing the game (aka the services providing guidance), than being the lemmings who just keep on running and commit suicide (aka the networks who are not moving, getting experience and doing something). Greets, Jeroen (Who still ranks Lemmings(tm) as one of the top games ever, simple and way too much fun, Amiga Lemmings X-mas special anyone? :) ) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Peering - Benefits?
vijay gill writes: >This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly >because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit >for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not >peering. There are some small arguments to be made for latency and >'cheap/free' peering if you are already buying transit at an exchange >and your port/xconn fee is cheaper than your capital/opex for the >amount of traffic you peer off. The other factor worth considering is the level of control your business plan supports giving up to third parties. This is more of a problem for things like real-time voice or video, but the circumstance can exist that depending on two even very good carriers may be uncomfortable - particular the first time one of them has a systemic issue. >To be completely realistic, at current transit pricing, you are almost >always better off just buying transit from two upstreams and calling >it done, especially if you are posting to nanog asking about peering. Yep. Joe
Re: Peering - Benefits?
On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Paul Stewart wrote: Why does the controversy word keep coming up? You're the third person now to ask if I was trying to provide controversy and for the third time , NO I AM NOT. And again, I *do* understand the issues at hand - although some new viewpoints I hadn't considered before came up and thank you. My question should have read specifically - "what points do you make with senior management to move towards larger, more diverse peering options compared to today?" Refer them to the Cogent / Sprint thread also occurring on NANOG. (I know it is too late to enter but I thought this was too apropos to pass up.) Regards Marshall Thank you however - I do have all the info I require and we're moving ahead... Best regards, Paul -Original Message- From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:34 PM To: vijay gill; Paul Stewart Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Peering - Benefits? As with all things, this isn't so cut and dried as everyone makes it seem. The OP was asking for an easy answer to a complex question, which usually shows a lack of understanding of the issues, or is an attempt to provoke controversy. So far, most of the discussion has focused on peering as a substitute for transit. The idea behind peering is not that the peer takes your traffic destined for other networks, but that you each deliver the traffic destined for each other directly, without the need to transit. This should save BOTH of you $ on transit, reduce routing complexity for the peered networks, make troubleshooting traffic issues between the networks easier, and improve user experience. Common examples of where peering makes a lot of sense are: Major hosting providers to major national end-user networks. CDNs to end-user networks. Local data centers and DR facilities to metropolitan Ethernet providers. Hosting facilities to networks that service certain specific user communities, such as local realty MLS systems to the local cable and DSL providers. If you're using peering for transit, you're kind of missing the point, and introducing a lot of potential network (route leakage or excessive route prepends) and business (at what point does a transit imbalance become unfair) problems. IMO, peer for direct delivery, use transit for all else. YMMV -Original Message- From: vijay gill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:20 PM To: Paul Stewart Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits? This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not peering. There are some small arguments to be made for latency and 'cheap/free' peering if you are already buying transit at an exchange and your port/xconn fee is cheaper than your capital/opex for the amount of traffic you peer off. To be completely realistic, at current transit pricing, you are almost always better off just buying transit from two upstreams and calling it done, especially if you are posting to nanog asking about peering. /vijay On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Paul Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi there... I'm in a meeting next week to discuss settlement-free peering etc. always an interesting time. A push is on (by myself) to get into other physical locations and participate on the peering exchanges. Besides costs, what other factors are benefits to peering? I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of appealing reasons etc. such as: -control over routing between networks -security aspect (being able to filter/verify routes to some degree) -latency/performance Just looking for other positive ideas etc...;) Cheers! Paul -- -- "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you." "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
Re: Peering - Benefits?
My company will be peering with two other SPs in the area purely for business strategic purposes. It turns out that at least one of these SPs owns the fiber running to the first CO in our transit back to Chicago. So it helps to be buddies with these companies. Paul Vixie wrote: > "Paul Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> ... >> >> My question was meant at a much higher level - a level where costs are >> equal for peering/transit and all the "technical" and the "financial" >> homework has been done already now I'm the stage of one last meeting >> with top level management to explain "peering" and it's magic. These are >> mainly non-technical people - so my question to NANOG was for viewpoints >> on peering of which hopefully I could reinforce some of my own thoughts >> with. Whether or not someone operating at scale isn't the discussion - >> and it's funny how many people involved with companies (that are >> "operating at scale") have emailed me offline since this discussion >> started a few days ago with questions/thoughts and strategy. >> > > if the financials and technicals are similar enough to be factored out, > then what you have to look at is possible variance between tactical and > strategic cost/benefit ratios. basically this boils down to the cost of > lock-in. if you're going to avoid lock-in then you have get your own > address space and build out to at least one IXP and then, buy diverse > transit. once you have done all that, the cost of also peering is in the > noise, whereas the advantage of also peering is noticeable if not always > easily measureable. if you're not going to avoid lock-in, then everything > you'd need to spend to avoid it can be avoided, and you won't be peering > unless it's for purely strategic reasons. > -- Steve King Cisco Certified Network Associate CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional CompTIA A+ Certified Professional
RE: Peering - Benefits?
Why does the controversy word keep coming up? You're the third person now to ask if I was trying to provide controversy and for the third time , NO I AM NOT. And again, I *do* understand the issues at hand - although some new viewpoints I hadn't considered before came up and thank you. My question should have read specifically - "what points do you make with senior management to move towards larger, more diverse peering options compared to today?" Thank you however - I do have all the info I require and we're moving ahead... Best regards, Paul -Original Message- From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:34 PM To: vijay gill; Paul Stewart Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Peering - Benefits? As with all things, this isn't so cut and dried as everyone makes it seem. The OP was asking for an easy answer to a complex question, which usually shows a lack of understanding of the issues, or is an attempt to provoke controversy. So far, most of the discussion has focused on peering as a substitute for transit. The idea behind peering is not that the peer takes your traffic destined for other networks, but that you each deliver the traffic destined for each other directly, without the need to transit. This should save BOTH of you $ on transit, reduce routing complexity for the peered networks, make troubleshooting traffic issues between the networks easier, and improve user experience. Common examples of where peering makes a lot of sense are: Major hosting providers to major national end-user networks. CDNs to end-user networks. Local data centers and DR facilities to metropolitan Ethernet providers. Hosting facilities to networks that service certain specific user communities, such as local realty MLS systems to the local cable and DSL providers. If you're using peering for transit, you're kind of missing the point, and introducing a lot of potential network (route leakage or excessive route prepends) and business (at what point does a transit imbalance become unfair) problems. IMO, peer for direct delivery, use transit for all else. YMMV >-Original Message- >From: vijay gill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:20 PM >To: Paul Stewart >Cc: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits? > >This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly >because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit >for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not >peering. There are some small arguments to be made for latency and >'cheap/free' peering if you are already buying transit at an exchange >and your port/xconn fee is cheaper than your capital/opex for the >amount of traffic you peer off. > >To be completely realistic, at current transit pricing, you are almost >always better off just buying transit from two upstreams and calling >it done, especially if you are posting to nanog asking about peering. > >/vijay > > >On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Paul Stewart ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi there... >> >> I'm in a meeting next week to discuss settlement-free peering etc. >> always an interesting time. A push is on (by myself) to get into >other >> physical locations and participate on the peering exchanges. >> >> Besides costs, what other factors are benefits to peering? >> >> I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of >appealing >> reasons etc. such as: >> >> -control over routing between networks >> -security aspect (being able to filter/verify routes to some degree) >> -latency/performance >> >> >> Just looking for other positive ideas etc...;) >> >> Cheers! >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >-- >> >> "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity >to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged >material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender >immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all >attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank >you." >> >> "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
Re: Peering - Benefits?
"Paul Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... > > My question was meant at a much higher level - a level where costs are > equal for peering/transit and all the "technical" and the "financial" > homework has been done already now I'm the stage of one last meeting > with top level management to explain "peering" and it's magic. These are > mainly non-technical people - so my question to NANOG was for viewpoints > on peering of which hopefully I could reinforce some of my own thoughts > with. Whether or not someone operating at scale isn't the discussion - > and it's funny how many people involved with companies (that are > "operating at scale") have emailed me offline since this discussion > started a few days ago with questions/thoughts and strategy. if the financials and technicals are similar enough to be factored out, then what you have to look at is possible variance between tactical and strategic cost/benefit ratios. basically this boils down to the cost of lock-in. if you're going to avoid lock-in then you have get your own address space and build out to at least one IXP and then, buy diverse transit. once you have done all that, the cost of also peering is in the noise, whereas the advantage of also peering is noticeable if not always easily measureable. if you're not going to avoid lock-in, then everything you'd need to spend to avoid it can be avoided, and you won't be peering unless it's for purely strategic reasons. -- Paul Vixie
Re: Another driver for v6?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:41:01AM -0600, Mike Lewinski wrote: >> This is a sound evolutionary tactic lemmings use. =) > > I know this is way OT, but I can't let it pass. The lemming suicide myth > was created by a very questionable Walt Disney documentary: This is also way OT, but I was actually thinking more of Lemmings(TM), the video game, as I am not really very familiar with rodents. We've already got sixxs and hurricane electric set as tunnel lemmings, we can get through the IPv4 address shortfall by setting a variety of other ISP's to explode and build bridges... The only thing to iron out is: Who gets to be (golden) parachute lemmings? -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgpuH5pHYbmyp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another driver for v6?
David W. Hankins wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:55:01PM +, Andy Davidson wrote: Do you think that industry should be working to some kind of well supported / worldwide flag day when lots of popular resources add v6 records at the same time ? This is a sound evolutionary tactic lemmings use. =) I know this is way OT, but I can't let it pass. The lemming suicide myth was created by a very questionable Walt Disney documentary: http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlife_news.view_article&issue_id=6&articles_id=56
Re: Another driver for v6?
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:55:01PM +, Andy Davidson wrote: > Do you think that industry should be working to some kind of well supported > / worldwide flag day when lots of popular resources add v6 records at the > same time ? This is a sound evolutionary tactic lemmings use. =) But I'll take you one step simpler; get the industry to choose a day where it will no longer be acceptable to treat IPv6 like an experimental project. Sometime last year would have been great. If you can do that, then the RRset changes would come naturally afterwards. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgpXVKGKfRJn2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another driver for v6?
Google's statistics are using themselves as the subject, a fixed point in the network. It's hard to guarantee that subjective experience is going to be equal across the entirety of the network, but let us presume for the purpose of discussion that they are. I think the point in the final analysis for customer-facing FQDN's is; 1) How much in USD is 0.09% loss of sales/customer-experience/etc? 2) What amount in USD is acceptable to lose, in order to gain IPv6's advantages? Be sure to include recurring support costs, abuse, and engineering manhours for the design and deployment. Note that the second question is a subjective cost/value analysis, and the typical operator may not find much value in IPv6 (today). So again, in summary, I absolutely think every network needs to be getting IPv6 into their workshops. You have to be prepared for what's coming. I'm still recommending a variety of caution in that first deployment on production systems. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgpNlprfdaeX5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sprint / Cogent
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Alex Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why do I say stupid? > > Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is > doing, this will > certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we > will have federally > regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau > of Peering will be > part of the Federal Networking Committee. > This is different than the 3yr hold on peering changes imposed on UUNET/MCI when they merged with Verizon (were borged by verizon) or the same hold imposed on ATT when the SBC/ATT merger went down? -chris
Re: Sprint / Cogent
On 31/10/2008 13:23, Joe Greco wrote: It is certainly not "just" a bullying tactic. It may be "A" bullying tactic, I won't even attempt to guess at the intent, but the tactic also has the very real side effect of re-establishing full connectivity to Sprint-connected sites that lose it. you-re right - it's a bullying tactic, not "just a". Apart from the sales and publicity stunt value, it will put a certain amount of pressure on Sprint to actually do something about the problem rather than sit back, ignore it and hope it goes away. Nick
Re: Sprint / Cogent
I would have to agree with Alex that if behavior like this doesn't stop that the Fed would get involved(regardless of which party is in office). Is this type of behavior called 'peer pressure', maybe there are care groups to help these victims. Overall... it is one thing if Sprint and Cogent get into a shouting match, it would be a whole other ballpark if say AT&T, Qwest, Verizon or Time Warner de-peered. -- Brian Raaen Network Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Friday 31 October 2008, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not > > aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered > > them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve. > > Because some SP's still have a sour taste in their mouth about what Cogent did to the marketplace when they started. If you recall, they were the most disturbing force in the transit wars (not to be confused with the cola or fast-food wars), when they came out with $3,000 fast-Ethernets, and everyone else was enjoying $100+/meg. In my opinion, this was the free market at work, and look -- the market as continued to thrive with plenty of competition. > > Not being a customer of either of these guys, I could care less about this. While Sprint most certainly has their reasons, I think generally speaking people care less about this sort of thing these days. 1239 is certainly not the force that they used to be, and they should realize it and stop being stupid. > > Why do I say stupid? > > Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee. > > Does anyone want that? I certainly don't. Again, not because it would overly affect me, it's just more regulation which we don't need. > > I'll crawl back under my rock now. > >
Re: Comcast contact
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The URL Comcast gives with the spam block message is invalid. I doubt > I'll get action through their support channels either, and I can't even > find a useful looking one of those on their website... The URL you want is http://www.comcastsupport.com/rbl/ - and it looks quite valid from where I sit. --srs
Re: Sprint / Cogent
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: Alex Rubenstein wrote: Why do I say stupid? Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee. I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the Department Of Fairness. the two likely entities in the United States would be either the FCC or DHS. (DHS you say?) The NCS lives under DHS. I wonder if sprint reported the "outage" to the FCC yet, or what answer you would get from calling the NCS or NCC watch. Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting : http://www.publish.com/c/a/Mobile/FCC-to-Consider-SprintClearwire-Merger/ http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286069A1.pdf From the tentative agenda : A Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing the applications filed by Sprint Nextel and Clearwire for approval of the transfer ofcontrol of licenses, authorizations and leasing arrangements held by Sprint Nextel and its subsidiaries to New Clearwire. Regards Marshall - Jared
Re: Sprint / Cogent
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: Alex Rubenstein wrote: Why do I say stupid? Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee. I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the Department Of Fairness. the two likely entities in the United States would be either the FCC or DHS. (DHS you say?) The NCS lives under DHS. I wonder if sprint reported the "outage" to the FCC yet, or what answer you would get from calling the NCS or NCC watch. - Jared
Re: Sprint / Cogent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Lewis) wrote: > It seems to me, it's a rather empty offer though. How many Sprint > customers affected by the Sprint/Cogent depeering are actually in > facilities where they can get that free Cogent connection without paying > for expensive backhaul to reach Cogent and already have an ASN, BGP > capable router(s), and globally routable CIDRS so they can access both the > Sprint and Cogent views of the internet? The profitable ones. El "ask something complicated" mar.
RE: Sprint / Cogent
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Nick Hilliard wrote: This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the same thing when Level3 depeered them. And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint. It seems to me, it's a rather empty offer though. How many Sprint customers affected by the Sprint/Cogent depeering are actually in facilities where they can get that free Cogent connection without paying for expensive backhaul to reach Cogent and already have an ASN, BGP capable router(s), and globally routable CIDRS so they can access both the Sprint and Cogent views of the internet? Does anyone know how many Level3 customers Cogent actually hooked up when Level3 and Cogent stopped peering? -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Peering - Benefits?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 30 Oct 2008, at 13:03, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis >MP wrote: >> (the amsix with their many outages and connected parties that rely >> primarliy on it's functionality is a prime example here) > >I run interconnection for three networks connected to the ams-ix and >can't understand why you think that the ams-ix fabric has "many >outages" - I have found it, to borrow a phrase from another stable >European IXP, rock solid. The AMS-IX is a service that is present at multiple colocation providers. One or two of these are, let's say, not state of the art anymore. But that's a colo issue and doesn't have anything to do with the AMS-IX network. This is different from the US, where an internet exchange is usually tied in with one colocation provider, so I can see where the confusion comes from. Mike.
Re: Sprint / Cogent
Larry Sheldon wrote: I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the Department Of Fairness. OOps. My bad. Ministry of Fairness.
Re: Sprint / Cogent
Alex Rubenstein wrote: Why do I say stupid? Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee. I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the Department Of Fairness.
Re: Sprint / Cogent
On Oct 31, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: The most interesting part of the press release to me is: In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides service, Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is unable to connect to Cogent's customers a free 100 megabit per second connection to the Internet for as long as Sprint continues to keep this partitioning of the Internet in place. Unfortunately, there is no way that Cogent can do the same for the wireless customers of Sprint-Nextel. This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the same thing when Level3 depeered them. And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint. I would regard this as a good sales tactic. I don't see bullying. Regards Marshall Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts: The loudest has the final say, The wanton win, the rash hold sway, The realist's rules of order say The drunken driver has the right of way. Nick
RE: Sprint / Cogent
> So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not > aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered > them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve. Because some SP's still have a sour taste in their mouth about what Cogent did to the marketplace when they started. If you recall, they were the most disturbing force in the transit wars (not to be confused with the cola or fast-food wars), when they came out with $3,000 fast-Ethernets, and everyone else was enjoying $100+/meg. In my opinion, this was the free market at work, and look -- the market as continued to thrive with plenty of competition. Not being a customer of either of these guys, I could care less about this. While Sprint most certainly has their reasons, I think generally speaking people care less about this sort of thing these days. 1239 is certainly not the force that they used to be, and they should realize it and stop being stupid. Why do I say stupid? Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee. Does anyone want that? I certainly don't. Again, not because it would overly affect me, it's just more regulation which we don't need. I'll crawl back under my rock now.
Re: Depeering as an IPv6 driver (was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Brandon Galbraith wrote: On 10/30/08, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Deepak Jain wrote: I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6 (single homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me thinks, yes. So would some "CGN" (Carrier Grade Nat anyone) too. Last I knew Cogent wasn't doing any IPv6.. has that changed? - Jared Not that I know of. We tried to get IPv6 transit from Cogent several months ago (we already have IPv4 transit), and were told it's not available yet. Did they provide you with a roadmap ? :-) ./Carlos -brandon -- Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sprint / Cogent
> > This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the > > same thing when Level3 depeered them. > > And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying > tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint. It is certainly not "just" a bullying tactic. It may be "A" bullying tactic, I won't even attempt to guess at the intent, but the tactic also has the very real side effect of re-establishing full connectivity to Sprint-connected sites that lose it. Given that other very significant result of the tactic, it is clearly not "just a bullying tactic." ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
RE: Sprint / Cogent
Best guess would be traffic ratio related - that always seems to be related to de-peering. One side doesn't like the amount of traffic coming in versus going out etc... Paul -Original Message- From: Justin Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:03 AM To: Nick Hilliard Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Sprint / Cogent Nick Hilliard wrote: > And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a > bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if > you're Sprint. > > Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts: > > The loudest has the final say, > The wanton win, the rash hold sway, > The realist's rules of order say > The drunken driver has the right of way. So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve. Justin "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
Re: Sprint / Cogent
Nick Hilliard wrote: And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint. Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts: The loudest has the final say, The wanton win, the rash hold sway, The realist's rules of order say The drunken driver has the right of way. So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve. Justin
Re: Another driver for v6?
* David W. Hankins > It is almost lunacy to deploy IPv6 in a customer-facing sense (note > for example Google's choice to put its on a separate FQDN). At > this point, I'd say people are still trying to figure out how clients > will migrate to IPv6. Which seems like a pretty bad time to still be > trying to figure that out, but ohwell. Google has been testing this a bit on their main pages. Select quotes from the presentation of their results: > 0.238% of users have useful IPv6 connectivity (and prefer IPv6) > 0.09% of users have broken IPv6 connectivity The summary disagrees with you about the «almost lunacy» part: > It's not that broken > - ~0.09% clients lost, ~150ms extra latency - don't believe the FUD The slides are here, they're worth a look in my opinion: http://rosie.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/uploads/Thursday/Plenary 14:00/upl/Colitti-Global_IPv6_statistics_-_Measuring_the_current_state_of_IPv6_for_ordinary_users.xD5A.pdf Best regards, -- Tore Anderson
RE: Sprint / Cogent
The most interesting part of the press release to me is: In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides service, Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is unable to connect to Cogent's customers a free 100 megabit per second connection to the Internet for as long as Sprint continues to keep this partitioning of the Internet in place. Unfortunately, there is no way that Cogent can do the same for the wireless customers of Sprint-Nextel. This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the same thing when Level3 depeered them. And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint. Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts: The loudest has the final say, The wanton win, the rash hold sway, The realist's rules of order say The drunken driver has the right of way. Nick
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Oct 31 21:32:47 2008 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
24-10-08285588 174160
25-10-08286298 174393
25-10-08285672 174887
27-10-08285587 175208
28-10-08285651 174054
29-10-08286163 173898
30-10-08286157 174074
31-10-08286084 173860
AS Summary
29805 Number of ASes in routing system
12615 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
5049 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS4538 : ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Network
Center
88278016 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS721 : DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 31Oct08 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 285791 173743 11204839.2% All ASes
AS4538 5049 871 417882.7% ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education
and Research Network Center
AS6389 4359 351 400891.9% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.
AS209 3052 1326 172656.6% ASN-QWEST - Qwest
Communications Corporation
AS1785 1696 164 153290.3% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.
AS6298 2045 681 136466.7% ASN-CXA-PH-6298-CBS - Cox
Communications Inc.
AS4755 1499 251 124883.3% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly VSNL
is Leading ISP
AS17488 1403 303 110078.4% HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over
Cable Internet
AS4323 1562 479 108369.3% TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
inc.
AS22773 1001 66 93593.4% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
Cox Communications Inc.
AS8151 1400 543 85761.2% Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS11492 1211 462 74961.8% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.
AS19262 946 223 72376.4% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon
Internet Services Inc.
AS2386 1594 916 67842.5% INS-AS - AT&T Data
Communications Services
AS6478 1324 649 67551.0% ATT-INTERNET3 - AT&T WorldNet
Services
AS18566 1059 426 63359.8% COVAD - Covad Communications
Co.
AS9498 692 115 57783.4% BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.
AS18101 782 208 57473.4% RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd
Internet Data Centre,
AS3356 1056 484 57254.2% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications
AS4808 627 155 47275.3% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network
AS7545 611 140 47177.1% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
Pty Ltd
AS855590 142 44875.9% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant
AS17676 522 79 44384.9% GIGAINFRA BB TECHNOLOGY Corp.
AS9443 526 84 44284.0% INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus
Telecommunications
AS24560 601 159 44273.5% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
Services
AS22047 566 127 43977.6% VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A.
AS7018 1426 990 43630.6% ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet
Services
AS7011 923 495 42846.4% FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS -
Frontier Communications of
America, Inc.
AS4134 869 447 42248.6% CHINANET-BACKBONE
BGP Update Report
BGP Update Report Interval: 29-Sep-08 -to- 30-Oct-08 (32 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS2.0 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS9583 194959 1.8% 174.2 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 2 - AS4538 117869 1.1% 23.2 -- ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Network Center 3 - AS638996967 0.9% 22.0 -- BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc. 4 - AS180393586 0.9% 67.4 -- ICMNET-5 - Sprint 5 - AS662971416 0.7%1098.7 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA 6 - AS20115 67120 0.6% 28.7 -- CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications 7 - AS815165720 0.6% 27.4 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V. 8 - AS569164633 0.6%4971.8 -- MITRE-AS-5 - The MITRE Corporation 9 - AS905161506 0.6% 384.4 -- IDM Autonomous System 10 - AS10396 50322 0.5% 653.5 -- COQUI-NET - DATACOM CARIBE, INC. 11 - AS704648974 0.5% 82.9 -- UUNET-CUSTOMER - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 12 - AS238645822 0.4% 27.8 -- INS-AS - AT&T Data Communications Services 13 - AS22492 44217 0.4% 14739.0 -- 14 - AS20255 43679 0.4%1409.0 -- Tecnowind S.A. 15 - AS209 43308 0.4% 13.6 -- ASN-QWEST - Qwest Communications Corporation 16 - AS645843061 0.4% 106.9 -- Telgua 17 - AS10986 42338 0.4% 475.7 -- Intermedia Comunicaciones S.A. 18 - AS764341356 0.4% 23.8 -- VNN-AS-AP Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications (VNPT) 19 - AS17974 40394 0.4% 49.6 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 20 - AS34116 39164 0.4% 391.6 -- CYBER-AS Cyber Net AS TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS14593 37576 0.3% 37576.0 -- BRAND-INSTITUTE - Brand Instiute, Inc. 2 - AS43299 21481 0.2% 21481.0 -- TELECONTACT-AS Telecontact Ltd. 3 - AS22492 44217 0.4% 14739.0 -- 4 - AS37026 21593 0.2% 10796.5 -- SALT-ASN 5 - AS569164633 0.6%4971.8 -- MITRE-AS-5 - The MITRE Corporation 6 - AS302874469 0.0%4469.0 -- ALON-USA - ALON USA, LP 7 - AS21603 36845 0.3%3684.5 -- Universidad La Salle, AC 8 - AS23082 18245 0.2%3649.0 -- MPHI - Michigan Public Health Institute 9 - AS30969 29150 0.3%3643.8 -- TAN-NET TransAfrica Networks 10 - AS299103501 0.0%3501.0 -- IACP - INTL. ASSN OF CHIEF OF POLICEI 11 - AS41007 15591 0.1%3118.2 -- CTCASTANA CTC ASTANA, KZ 12 - AS413015251 0.1%3050.2 -- UPITT-AS - University of Pittsburgh 13 - AS8266 2934 0.0%2934.0 -- NEXUSTEL Nexus Telecommunications 14 - AS381802450 0.0%2450.0 -- ETPI-IDS-JOLLIBEE-AS-AP 6/Fth floor JOLLIBEE PLAZA, Emerald Ave. Ortigas Center Pasig City. 15 - AS503320329 0.2%2258.8 -- ISW - Internet Specialties West Inc. 16 - AS239172238 0.0%2238.0 -- BRIBIE-NET-AS-AP Bribie Island Net Multihomed, Brisbane 17 - AS441942078 0.0%2078.0 -- FREIFUNK-BERLIN-AS Freifunk Berlin 18 - AS257991998 0.0%1998.0 -- HOLMAN - Holman Enterprises 19 - AS391051888 0.0%1888.0 -- CLASS-AS SC Class Computers And Service SRL 20 - AS425211724 0.0%1724.0 -- COFUND-AS Fundacja Fundusz Wspolpracy TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 192.12.120.0/24 64364 0.6% AS5691 -- MITRE-AS-5 - The MITRE Corporation 2 - 221.134.222.0/24 62651 0.6% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 3 - 210.214.151.0/24 60986 0.6% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 4 - 221.135.80.0/24 46255 0.4% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 5 - 194.126.143.0/24 44980 0.4% AS9051 -- IDM Autonomous System 6 - 12.2.46.0/24 44187 0.4% AS22492 -- 7 - 12.8.7.0/24 37576 0.3% AS14593 -- BRAND-INSTITUTE - Brand Instiute, Inc. 8 - 200.33.104.0/23 36176 0.3% AS21603 -- Universidad La Salle, AC 9 - 221.128.192.0/18 25369 0.2% AS18231 -- EXATT-AS-AP IOL NETCOM LTD 10 - 192.102.88.0/24 23637 0.2% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA 11 - 196.42.0.0/20 23578 0.2% AS10396 -- COQUI-NET - DATACOM CARIBE, INC. 12 - 198.77.177.0/24 23532 0.2% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA 13 - 72.50.96.0/20 23493 0.2% AS10396 -- COQUI-NET - DATACOM CARIBE, INC. 14 - 192.35.129.0/24 23460 0.2% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA 15 - 78.40.24.0/21 21481 0.2% AS43299 -- TELECONTACT-AS Telecontact Ltd. 16 - 200.108.200.0/24 21443 0.2% AS20255 -- Tecnowind S.A. 17 - 200.108.220.0/24 21434 0.2% AS20255 -- Tecnowind S.A. 18 - 64.162.116.0/24 20217 0.2% AS5033 -- ISW - Internet Specialties West Inc. 19 - 89.4.131.0/24 15291 0
RE: Peering - Benefits?
Hi there... We've done the financial study and we've taken great lengths in netflow analysis to do estimated traffic flows at each peering location etc. This was factored before I posted and as I mentioned in an earlier posting - the cost element is pretty much addressed already with our transit/peering coming in almost at the same cost when the built-out is completed. We are already peering locally with the folks where most of our transit comes from - been doing that for quite a period of time... >Cost of transport, opex and capital to build out to a peering point, >ports for interconnect, vs the expected money saved by peering away >sufficient traffic is the analysis that will inform your strategy. >This is why I said if you are already at a place where you are buying >transit, it probably worth it to peer with the folks locally. My question was meant at a much higher level - a level where costs are equal for peering/transit and all the "technical" and the "financial" homework has been done already now I'm the stage of one last meeting with top level management to explain "peering" and it's magic. These are mainly non-technical people - so my question to NANOG was for viewpoints on peering of which hopefully I could reinforce some of my own thoughts with. Whether or not someone operating at scale isn't the discussion - and it's funny how many people involved with companies (that are "operating at scale") have emailed me offline since this discussion started a few days ago with questions/thoughts and strategy. >The point is if you are building out specifically to peer, the effort >is not worth it if you are not operating at scale, and if you are >operating at scale, you are not going to ask nanog about peering. "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
RE: Peering - Benefits?
There was no attempt to provoke controversy - I'm in the OP in this... there have been many replies that don't relate to my question though... I don't believe I have a lack of understanding neither - we do smaller scale peering today. I was however trying to look for positive and negative reasons for peering that perhaps we didn't take into consideration beyond how we do it today... the only change for our peering will be the element of long hauling the traffic and expanding it into larger scales - that's about it. Basically I have all the answers I'm looking for now - thank you. Paul -Original Message- From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 30, 2008 10:34 PM To: vijay gill; Paul Stewart Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Peering - Benefits? As with all things, this isn't so cut and dried as everyone makes it seem. The OP was asking for an easy answer to a complex question, which usually shows a lack of understanding of the issues, or is an attempt to provoke controversy. "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
Deadline extension: ICNS 2009 + 1st Workshop LMPCNAP | April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain
Note that the deadline extension for ICNS 2009 has been extended to November 10. We would like to make ICNS 2009 a primary reference event. Please consider to contribute to and/or forward to the appropriate groups the following opportunity to submit and publish original scientific results. Please note that extended versions of highly ranked papers will be invited for journals submission. Full contributions are expected by the submission deadline. === ICNS 2009 + 1st Workshop LMPCNAP | Call for Papers === CALL FOR PAPERS, TUTORIALS, PANELS - ICNS 2009, The Fifth International Conference on Networking and Services April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain General page: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/ICNS09.html Call for Papers: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPICNS09.html - The first International Workshop on Learning Methodologies and Platforms used in the Cisco Networking Academy Program (CNAP), LMPCNAP 2009 will be held during ICNS 2009 in April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain General page: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/LMPCNAP.html Important deadlines: Submission (full paper) November 10, 2008 Authors notification December 5, 2008 Registration December 20, 2008 Camera ready December 25, 2008 Submissions will be peer-reviewed, published by IEEE CS Press, posted in IEEE Digital Library, and indexed with the major indexes. Extended versions of selected papers will be published in IARIA Journals: http://www.iariajournals.org Please note the Poster Forum special submission with on progress and challenging ideas. ICNS 2009 Area Tracks are the following (details in the CfP on site): ENCOT: Emerging Network Communications and Technologies COMAN: Network Control and Management SERVI: Multi-technology service deployment and assurance NGNUS: Next Generation Networks and Ubiquitous Services MPQSI: Multi Provider QoS/SLA Internetworking GRIDNS: Grid Networks and Services EDNA: Emergency Services and Disaster Recovery of Networks and Applications IPv6DFI: Deploying the Future Infrastructure IPDy: Internet Packet Dynamics GOBS: GRID over Optical Burst Switching Networks = - ICNS General Chair Jaime Lloret Mauri, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain - ICNS 2009 Industry Chairs Kevin Y Ung, Boeing, USA Leo Lehmann, OFCOM, Switzerland Francisco Javier Sánchez, Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF), Spain - ICNS 2009 Technical Program Committee Chair Giancarlo Fortino, Università della Calabria, Italy Salvador Sales, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain Feng Xia, Queensland University of Technology, Australia / Zhejiang University, China - ICNS Advisory Chairs Wojciech Burakowski, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland Vicente Casares, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain Petre Dini, Cisco Systems, Inc., USA / Concordia University, Canada Xiaohua Jia, City University of Hong Kong - Kowloon, Hong Kong Manuel Sierra-Pérez, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain - LMPCNAP 2009 General Chair Rafael Tomas, Mediterranean Cisco Academy Training Center (CATC), Spain - LMPCNAP 2009 Technical Program Commitee chair Prof. Tomeu Serra, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain
