RE: XO - a Tier 1 or not?
XO has been offering a product lately that is all routes except level3 and sprint which leads me to believe that they pay both of those peers... John van Oppen Spectrum Networks LLC Direct: 206.973.8302 Main: 206.973.8300 Website: http://spectrumnetworks.us -Original Message- From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:31 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: XO - a Tier 1 or not? On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Charles Mills wrote: Trying to sort through the marketecture and salesman speak and get a definitive answer. I figure the NANOGers would be able to give me some input. Is XO Communications a Tier 1 ISP? Do the best of my knowledge, no. The definition of 'Tier 1' is something of a moving target based on who you ask, but the most commonly stated criteria I've seen over the years are: 1. The provider does not buy IP transit from anyone - all traffic is moved on settlement-free public or private interconnects. That's not to say that the provider doesn't buy non-IP services (IRUs, lambdas, easements, etc) from other providers on occasion. 2. The provider lives in the default-free zone, which is pretty much a re-statement of point 1. I'll leave discussions about geographical coverage out of it for now. That said, I don't think XO meets the criteria above. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think they're totally settlement-free. Other providers like Cogent would fall into this bucket as well. However, I also wouldn't get too hung up on tiers. Many very reliable, competent, and responsive providers providers but transit to handle at least some portion of their traffic. It also depends on what sort of service you need. For example, if you need a big MPLS pipe to another country, there are a limited number of providers who can do that, so they would tend to be the big guys. However, if you just need general IP transit, your options open up quite a bit. jms
Re: XO - a Tier 1 or not?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:36 AM, John van Oppen wrote: XO has been offering a product lately that is all routes except level3 and sprint which leads me to believe that they pay both of those peers... Or there is a settlement in place, which is kinda-sortta the same thing, only not necessarily. Or they are worried about their ratios to those two networks. Which may be because of settlements. Or they might have capacity issues to those networks _because_ they do not pay those networks. Or Or you could be right. :) -- TTFN, patrick -Original Message- From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:31 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: XO - a Tier 1 or not? On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Charles Mills wrote: Trying to sort through the marketecture and salesman speak and get a definitive answer. I figure the NANOGers would be able to give me some input. Is XO Communications a Tier 1 ISP? Do the best of my knowledge, no. The definition of 'Tier 1' is something of a moving target based on who you ask, but the most commonly stated criteria I've seen over the years are: 1. The provider does not buy IP transit from anyone - all traffic is moved on settlement-free public or private interconnects. That's not to say that the provider doesn't buy non-IP services (IRUs, lambdas, easements, etc) from other providers on occasion. 2. The provider lives in the default-free zone, which is pretty much a re-statement of point 1. I'll leave discussions about geographical coverage out of it for now. That said, I don't think XO meets the criteria above. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think they're totally settlement-free. Other providers like Cogent would fall into this bucket as well. However, I also wouldn't get too hung up on tiers. Many very reliable, competent, and responsive providers providers but transit to handle at least some portion of their traffic. It also depends on what sort of service you need. For example, if you need a big MPLS pipe to another country, there are a limited number of providers who can do that, so they would tend to be the big guys. However, if you just need general IP transit, your options open up quite a bit. jms
RE: Data Center QoS equipment breaking http 1.1?
Facts first: name-based virtual hosts depend on the HOST header in the
HTTP/1.1 request to select the virtual web server.
I poured over my configs (I've done this config countless
times), and saw this in the apache docs:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/name-based.html
Some operating systems and network equipment implement
bandwidth management techniques that cannot differentiate
between hosts unless they are on separate IP addresses.
Thanslated into networking engineerese: since the QoS equipment (including
routers unless you use HTTB NBAR) cannot peer into contents of the TCP
session, it cannot find the HOST header and thus cannot decide which virtual
host the traffic belongs to, making it impossible to enforce
per-virtual-host QoS policies.
So, I installed lynx on the server, and sure enough, it
worked perfectly fine there, just not from anywhere outside
eSecuredata's network that I could see.
Can anyone shed any light on this particular practice, of
this company in particular?
What you're experiencing usually means only one thing: they're using a box
that messes with HTTP headers. It could be a misconfigured DPI box, a
transparent (broken) HTTP proxy or a custom-developed wizardry.
Configure the Apache logs (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/logs.html) to
log the virtual host name in the HTTP request (the %{host}i directive) or
use Wireshark on your client and the server to inspect it. If you find out
they're messing with the HOST header (as suspected) switch the provider
immediately.
Ivan
http://www.ioshints.info/about
http://blog.ioshints.info/
Re: The Cidr Report
Hi Patrick, On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:22:37 -0400 Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote: Recent Table History Date PrefixesCIDR Agg 24-07-09298785 182835 25-07-09299168 182751 26-07-09298909 182973 27-07-09299265 183099 28-07-09299345 183207 29-07-09299380 182987 30-07-09299354 183395 31-07-09299904 183680 Only 94 prefixes short! You mean 96, or is 28 important to you ? ;) Any bets on whether next tomorrow is THREE HUNDRED (thousand) day? Careful what you say, we actually dropped prefixes Wed - Thurs this week. Don't invite people to leak, you can be sure one of them will try to be the one who helped reach the 300K range :( Paul -- Paul RollandE-Mail : rol(at)witbe.net CTO - Witbe.net SA Tel. +33 (0)1 47 67 77 77 Les Collines de l'Arche Fax. +33 (0)1 47 67 77 99 F-92057 Paris La DefenseRIPE : PR12-RIPE This is dedicated to all the ones who want to control Internet, its content or its usage : I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' --Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Re: The Cidr Report
On 01/08/2009, at 6:44 PM, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) wrote: Hi Patrick, On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:22:37 -0400 Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote: Recent Table History Date PrefixesCIDR Agg 24-07-09298785 182835 25-07-09299168 182751 26-07-09298909 182973 27-07-09299265 183099 28-07-09299345 183207 29-07-09299380 182987 30-07-09299354 183395 31-07-09299904 183680 Only 94 prefixes short! You mean 96, or is 28 important to you ? ;) Any bets on whether next tomorrow is THREE HUNDRED (thousand) day? Careful what you say, we actually dropped prefixes Wed - Thurs this week. Don't invite people to leak, you can be sure one of them will try to be the one who helped reach the 300K range :( done! Right now its 32 entries from this vantage point. In amidst the teeming morass of updates of existing announced prefixes, sorting out the exact announcement of a new prefix that took the table over 30 entries will take a little time to work out. Geoff
Re: caches for peer-to-peer trafic
Guys! Thank you very much for your responses. Anymore responses will also be very much appreciated. On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Charles Gucker cguc...@onesc.net wrote: Sandvine Thanks and Regards, Ghulam Murtaza PhD Student, Lahore University of Management Sciences
Re: Dan Kaminsky
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Dragos Ruiud...@kyx.net wrote: at the risk of adding to the metadiscussion. what does any of this have to do with nanog? (sorry I'm kinda irritable about character slander being spammed out unnecessarily to unrelated public lists lately ;-P ) What does this have to do with Nanog, the guy found a critical security bug on DNS last year. There is no slander here, I put his name in the subject header so to draw attention to the relevance of posting it to Nanog. I copy pasted a news article caption, which also doesn't slander Dan Kaminsky but reports on the actions of other people true to the facts. Any further slander allegations, please point them at Wired's legal team. Andrew
Re: Dan Kaminsky
I don't see a video attached or an audio recording. Thus no slander. Libel on the other hand is a different matter. On Aug 1, 2009, at 8:10 AM, andrew.wallace wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Dragos Ruiud...@kyx.net wrote: at the risk of adding to the metadiscussion. what does any of this have to do with nanog? (sorry I'm kinda irritable about character slander being spammed out unnecessarily to unrelated public lists lately ;-P ) What does this have to do with Nanog, the guy found a critical security bug on DNS last year. There is no slander here, I put his name in the subject header so to draw attention to the relevance of posting it to Nanog. I copy pasted a news article caption, which also doesn't slander Dan Kaminsky but reports on the actions of other people true to the facts. Any further slander allegations, please point them at Wired's legal team. Andrew
