Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Josh Luthman]

Not offlist.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> Salam Reza,
>
> You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to
> answer the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective,
> being a small ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not
> sure if I will be able to convey to you the information properly.
>
> The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a
> particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not
> sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
>
> Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel
> free to call me at your convenience.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Reza Motamedi" 
> > To: "nanog list" 
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM
> > Subject: interconnection costs
>
> > Hi NANOG
> >
> > We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
> > interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
> > costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
> > costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
> > connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
> > through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
> > transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay
> a
> > monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
> > connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
> > need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many
> ASes
> > that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
> > being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the
> other
> > costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the
> first
> > place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who
> should
> > they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
> > to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
> >
> > I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> > different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand
> the
> > whole ecosystem a little bit better.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> > Graduate Research Fellow
> > Oregon Network Research Group
> > Computer and Information Science
> > University of Oregon
>

Re: Atlantic City

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Daniel Corbe  wrote:
> Can someone quote me a price off-list for 300Mbit (preferably on a GigE) in 
> Atlantic City somewhere?
>

that smells like FiOS territory...

Re: interconnection costs

[Baldur Norddahl]

There is only a xconnect expense if the peering happens at a third party
datacenter.

If it is a first party datacenter any xconnect fees can be considered part
of the peering price.

There is also the case where one party leases or builds a fiber to the
other party. The xconnect  always goes to the DC owner but there is usually
a choice of companies that can lease fiber. The transit provider might own
the fiber and provide the fiber lease and transit charge as one combined
offer.

We buy transit from the incumbent teleco. There is no xconnect because we
are in the building already with our gpon equipment and all cost is
regulated by the government. The regulator put the price of xconnect at $0
because frankly xconnect is a made up cost.

Regards

Baldur

Atlantic City

[Daniel Corbe]

Can someone quote me a price off-list for 300Mbit (preferably on a GigE) in 
Atlantic City somewhere?

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Mike Hammett]

Faisal is new to the Internet. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Faisal Imtiaz"  
To: "Reza Motamedi"  
Cc: "nanog list"  
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:31:11 PM 
Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list) 

Ouch... so much for off list .. :( 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message - 
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz"  
> To: "Reza Motamedi"  
> Cc: "nanog list"  
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM 
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list) 

> Salam Reza, 
> 
> You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer 
> the 
> over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small 
> ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be 
> able to convey to you the information properly. 
> 
> The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a 
> particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not 
> sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider. 
> 
> Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free 
> to 
> call me at your convenience. 
> 
> Regards. 
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz 
> Snappy Internet & Telecom 
> 7266 SW 48 Street 
> Miami, FL 33155 
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
> 
> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Reza Motamedi"  
>> To: "nanog list"  
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM 
>> Subject: interconnection costs 
> 
>> Hi NANOG 
>> 
>> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of 
>> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various 
>> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the 
>> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the 
>> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering 
>> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of 
>> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a 
>> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can 
>> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you 
>> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes 
>> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of 
>> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other 
>> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first 
>> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should 
>> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect 
>> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network? 
>> 
>> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have 
>> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the 
>> whole ecosystem a little bit better. 
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards 
>> Reza Motamedi (R.M) 
>> Graduate Research Fellow 
>> Oregon Network Research Group 
>> Computer and Information Science 
> > University of Oregon 

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Salam Reza,

You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer 
the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small 
ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be 
able to convey to you the information properly.

The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a 
particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not 
sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.

Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to 
call me at your convenience.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Reza Motamedi" 
> To: "nanog list" 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM
> Subject: interconnection costs

> Hi NANOG
> 
> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
> 
> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

[Owen DeLong]

Yet until Apple gets to that IPv6-only stage, you’re refusing to support IPv6 
for those of us
that need it today even while we still need IPv4, too.

Owen

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 10:08 , Ca By  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> Does this mean you are negligent for not supporting IPv6 on my phone on your 
> network?
> 
> My phone is perfectly capable of IPv6, yet because it doesn’t support your 
> particular religion
> about IPv4 translation, you refuse to support IPv6 on it.
> 
> When is T-Mobile going to fix their IPv6 implementation and stop ignoring the 
> #1 market
> leading phone manufacturer?
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> Apple has an ipv6-only plan in the link above. They have committed to remove 
> the ipv4 dependent apps from the app store. Once the ipv4-only apps are 
> bannished, i dont see any roadblocks for ipv6 on iPhone. 
> 
> While you say there is a religious war, i am saying Apple outlined a plan for 
> ipv6-only and T-Mobile is likely to follow that plan from Apple. 
> 
> CB
> 
>  
> > On Dec 22, 2015, at 04:45 , Ca By > wrote:
> >
> > TL;DR version: the data shows you are negligent if your eyeball content
> > (cdn, cloud, ...) does  not support native ipv6.
> >
> > With the NAT and IPv4 leasing threads lingering on, i figured it was time
> > for an update on how the other half live
> >
> > More than 1/3 of North America mobile traffic to the top websites is end to
> > end ipv6
> > http://www.worldipv6launch.org/2015-wrapup-more-than-13-us-mobile-traffic-is-ipv6-and-still-growing/
> >  
> > 
> >
> > The trend is clearly growing, and as AT and Sprint catch up with T-Mobile
> > and Verizon, the acceleration to 50% should be easily achieved.
> > Furthermore, only one mobile carrier has iPhone dual-stacked today (afaik),
> > but Apple has a plan for banning ipv4-only apps and has delivered the
> > required features for having ipv6-only iphones in 2016 with these iOS 9.2
> > features
> >
> > https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetWeb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition.html
> >  
> > 
> >
> > On some mobile providers, ipv6 is already dominant and ipv4 is waning. Once
> > iPhones updates to ipv6-only as described above, ipv4 will only be a corner
> > case of operations.  This comes with added benefit that ipv6 is faster :
> >
> > https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/
> >  
> > 
> >
> > At least in mobile, the change to ipv6 has been quick and the pace is
> > increasing -- not just on ipv6 deployment but also on ipv4 shutdown. I know
> > many people liken ipv6 to "the boy who cried wolf", so be it, the
> > data shows the ipv6 wolf is here.  Or perhapsin hind   sight, we will see
> > the right metaphor was "the tortoise and the hare" or "the little engine
> > that could"... Or even better IPv4 is John Henry.  It was the best in its
> > time, but times have changed.
> >
> > CB
> 

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Faisal Imtiaz]

or More like getting too old to remember completing the edit of mail to: field !

LOL!


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Mike Hammett" 
> Cc: "nanog list" 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:38:21 PM
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)

> Faisal is new to the Internet. ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
> To: "Reza Motamedi" 
> Cc: "nanog list" 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:31:11 PM
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
> 
> Ouch... so much for off list .. :(
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
>> To: "Reza Motamedi" 
>> Cc: "nanog list" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
> 
>> Salam Reza,
>> 
>> You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer 
>> the
>> over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small
>> ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be
>> able to convey to you the information properly.
>> 
>> The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a
>> particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not
>> sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
>> 
>> Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free 
>> to
>> call me at your convenience.
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>> 
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Reza Motamedi" 
>>> To: "nanog list" 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM
>>> Subject: interconnection costs
>> 
>>> Hi NANOG
>>> 
>>> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
>>> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
>>> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
>>> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
>>> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
>>> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
>>> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
>>> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
>>> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
>>> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
>>> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
>>> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
>>> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
>>> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
>>> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
>>> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
>>> 
>>> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
>>> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
>>> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best Regards
>>> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
>>> Graduate Research Fellow
>>> Oregon Network Research Group
>>> Computer and Information Science
> > > University of Oregon

How to update IPv6 geolocation data? Google sites blocked.

[David Sotnick]

Hello, and Season's Greetings!

We recently lit up a new IPv6-connected location and expanded our
ARIN-allocated /48 network to a /44 network to accommodate the additional
location (and future locations).

However, since moving our small satellite office off our primary /48 and
onto their own /48 as part of our /44 network, the users at that office are
receiving messages from e.g. YouTube that the "user has not made this
content available in your country".

How does one go about updating this v6 geolocation data? This is impacting
a bunch of our users.

Thanks!

-David

MACsec to edge hosts

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

Are any of you pushing MACsec (802.1AE) out from your switches to the edge 
hosts?  Vs. just running it on the network cross-connect fabric?

We have a scenario where, if we could MACsec encrypt those (switch <-> host) 
links, we could eliminate a lot of application level TLS.  But searching for a 
list of PHYs that support this turned up a very thin set of chips, with most of 
them being several years old now.

Are people even using MACsec in anything other than an "encrypt cross connects 
between the cages" context?  I would be very interested in chatting with anyone 
who has tried pushing this out from their switches to the connected hosts.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: interconnection costs

[Joly MacFie]

​If you haven't already, you should read this

​http://drpeering.net/core/bookOutline.html


​

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Reza Motamedi 
wrote:

> Hi NANOG
>
> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
>
> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
>



-- 
---
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--
-

Re: interconnection costs

[Reza Motamedi]

Thanks guys for the replies.

I wanted to clarify two things in my questions. First by peering I did not
necessarily mean "settlement free" interconnection. I meant any inter-AS
connection. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit
that should be paid to the transit provider, there also exists the cost of
the xconnect that is charged by the colocation provider. Secondly, my
question was more about the expenses, as opposed to the technical
costs/benefits. I have browsed through the "Peering Playbook", but I think
its more about providing a case "settlement free" peering.

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley  wrote:

> On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi 
> wrote:
> > I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> > different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand
> the
> > whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>
>
> Hi Reza,
>
> I have a list of example items that need to be costed in below, it is
> by no means a definitive list though:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2=1#
>
>
> Cheers,
> James.
>
>

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

[Andrew Kirch]

I wonder if Tmobile realizes that when you sign up for a contract with
them using one of their phones as a wifi hotspot, the address of their
enterprise NAT is what's recorded by their form.  They even make you
check a button to accept their lack of security.

Not that that could result in massive fraud or anything.  Not that
massive fraud is a problem for Tmobile either come to think of it.


On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> Yet until Apple gets to that IPv6-only stage, you’re refusing to support IPv6 
> for those of us
> that need it today even while we still need IPv4, too.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 10:08 , Ca By  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Owen DeLong > > wrote:
>> Does this mean you are negligent for not supporting IPv6 on my phone on your 
>> network?
>>
>> My phone is perfectly capable of IPv6, yet because it doesn’t support your 
>> particular religion
>> about IPv4 translation, you refuse to support IPv6 on it.
>>
>> When is T-Mobile going to fix their IPv6 implementation and stop ignoring 
>> the #1 market
>> leading phone manufacturer?
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> Apple has an ipv6-only plan in the link above. They have committed to remove 
>> the ipv4 dependent apps from the app store. Once the ipv4-only apps are 
>> bannished, i dont see any roadblocks for ipv6 on iPhone.
>>
>> While you say there is a religious war, i am saying Apple outlined a plan 
>> for ipv6-only and T-Mobile is likely to follow that plan from Apple.
>>
>> CB
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 22, 2015, at 04:45 , Ca By > 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > TL;DR version: the data shows you are negligent if your eyeball content
>> > (cdn, cloud, ...) does  not support native ipv6.
>> >
>> > With the NAT and IPv4 leasing threads lingering on, i figured it was time
>> > for an update on how the other half live
>> >
>> > More than 1/3 of North America mobile traffic to the top websites is end to
>> > end ipv6
>> > http://www.worldipv6launch.org/2015-wrapup-more-than-13-us-mobile-traffic-is-ipv6-and-still-growing/
>> >  
>> > 
>> >
>> > The trend is clearly growing, and as AT and Sprint catch up with T-Mobile
>> > and Verizon, the acceleration to 50% should be easily achieved.
>> > Furthermore, only one mobile carrier has iPhone dual-stacked today (afaik),
>> > but Apple has a plan for banning ipv4-only apps and has delivered the
>> > required features for having ipv6-only iphones in 2016 with these iOS 9.2
>> > features
>> >
>> > https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetWeb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition.html
>> >  
>> > 
>> >
>> > On some mobile providers, ipv6 is already dominant and ipv4 is waning. Once
>> > iPhones updates to ipv6-only as described above, ipv4 will only be a corner
>> > case of operations.  This comes with added benefit that ipv6 is faster :
>> >
>> > https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/
>> >  
>> > 
>> >
>> > At least in mobile, the change to ipv6 has been quick and the pace is
>> > increasing -- not just on ipv6 deployment but also on ipv4 shutdown. I know
>> > many people liken ipv6 to "the boy who cried wolf", so be it, the
>> > data shows the ipv6 wolf is here.  Or perhapsin hind   sight, we will see
>> > the right metaphor was "the tortoise and the hare" or "the little engine
>> > that could"... Or even better IPv4 is John Henry.  It was the best in its
>> > time, but times have changed.
>> >
>> > CB
>>
>

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Ouch... so much for off list .. :(

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
> To: "Reza Motamedi" 
> Cc: "nanog list" 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)

> Salam Reza,
> 
> You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer 
> the
> over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small
> ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be
> able to convey to you the information properly.
> 
> The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a
> particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not
> sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
> 
> Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to
> call me at your convenience.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Reza Motamedi" 
>> To: "nanog list" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM
>> Subject: interconnection costs
> 
>> Hi NANOG
>> 
>> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
>> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
>> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
>> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
>> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
>> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
>> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
>> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
>> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
>> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
>> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
>> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
>> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
>> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
>> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
>> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
>> 
>> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
>> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
>> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
>> Graduate Research Fellow
>> Oregon Network Research Group
>> Computer and Information Science
> > University of Oregon

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

[Owen DeLong]

Does this mean you are negligent for not supporting IPv6 on my phone on your 
network?

My phone is perfectly capable of IPv6, yet because it doesn’t support your 
particular religion
about IPv4 translation, you refuse to support IPv6 on it.

When is T-Mobile going to fix their IPv6 implementation and stop ignoring the 
#1 market
leading phone manufacturer?

Owen

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 04:45 , Ca By  wrote:
> 
> TL;DR version: the data shows you are negligent if your eyeball content
> (cdn, cloud, ...) does  not support native ipv6.
> 
> With the NAT and IPv4 leasing threads lingering on, i figured it was time
> for an update on how the other half live
> 
> More than 1/3 of North America mobile traffic to the top websites is end to
> end ipv6
> http://www.worldipv6launch.org/2015-wrapup-more-than-13-us-mobile-traffic-is-ipv6-and-still-growing/
> 
> The trend is clearly growing, and as AT and Sprint catch up with T-Mobile
> and Verizon, the acceleration to 50% should be easily achieved.
> Furthermore, only one mobile carrier has iPhone dual-stacked today (afaik),
> but Apple has a plan for banning ipv4-only apps and has delivered the
> required features for having ipv6-only iphones in 2016 with these iOS 9.2
> features
> 
> https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetWeb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition.html
> 
> On some mobile providers, ipv6 is already dominant and ipv4 is waning. Once
> iPhones updates to ipv6-only as described above, ipv4 will only be a corner
> case of operations.  This comes with added benefit that ipv6 is faster :
> 
> https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/
> 
> At least in mobile, the change to ipv6 has been quick and the pace is
> increasing -- not just on ipv6 deployment but also on ipv4 shutdown. I know
> many people liken ipv6 to "the boy who cried wolf", so be it, the
> data shows the ipv6 wolf is here.  Or perhapsin hind   sight, we will see
> the right metaphor was "the tortoise and the hare" or "the little engine
> that could"... Or even better IPv4 is John Henry.  It was the best in its
> time, but times have changed.
> 
> CB

Re: Nat

[James R Cutler]

Comments inline


> On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 01:21 , Bjørn Mork  wrote:
>> 
>> Owen DeLong  writes:
 On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>> 
 The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of
 subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating
 16 bits worth of subnets. How does that compare to the entire IPv4
 Internet?
>>> 
>>> I have more than 16 subnets in my house, so I can cite at least one
>>> house with need for more than 4 bits just in a hand-coded network.
>>> 
>>> Considering the future possibilities for automated topological
>>> hierarchies using DHCP-PD with dynamic joining and pruning routers, I
>>> think 8 bits is simply not enough to allow for the kind of flexibility
>>> we’d like to give to developers, so 16 bits seems like a reasonable
>>> compromise.
>> 
>> Thanks for summarizing why /48 for everybody is possible.  But I fear
>> that is not helping much against arguments based on "need". I believe it
>> is difficult to argue that anyone needs any IP address at all, given
>> that there are lots of people in the world who seem to survive just fine
>> without one…
> 
> Arguments based on “need” don’t make any sense in an IPv6 context.
> 
> Sure, we shouldn’t be so profligate in our distribution of the address pool
> that we run out well before the protocol’s useful life is exhausted, but I
> think I’ve shown that the current allocation policies, including /48 have
> adequate protection against that occurring.
> 
> Being more restrictive just for the sake of being more restrictive doesn’t
> serve any purpose. It doesn’t help anyone. As such, I just don’t understand
> those arguments. If someone can show me a tangible benefit from a more
> restrictive policy, I’m open to considering it, but so far, none exists.

The best feature of being more restrictive is continuing employment of people 
and processes for restriction.

The worst feature of being more restrictive is paying for the extra people and 
processes.

If we standardize on /48 (or whatever) then we can put all that money and labor 
into solving the real business problems of the IPv6 Internet..

Cutler
> 
>> So, with that sorted out, let's consider what you can do with 16 bits of
>> subnets.  One example is checksum neutral prefix translation (RFC6296)
>> without touching the interface id bits . Let's say you have two upstream
>> ISPs handing you the prefixes A/48 and B/56.  Neither offer any
>> multihoming support to residential users and both do BCP38 of course. So
>> you use B/56 internally and do prefix translation to allow your router
>> to select upstream without involving the clients.  Thanks to the A/48
>> from the first ISP, you are able to choose a set of 256 (or possibly 255
>> since 0x cannot be used) checksum neutral subnet pairs.
> 
> That’s a really icky alternative to simple BGP multihoming (which is what
> I’m currently using at home).
> 
> Of course, not the worst, but a significantly bad part of this is the provider
> that’s only giving you a /56 to begin with. ;-)
> 
>> Yes, I know. Evil. No need. No CPE support.  Etc.
> 
> True that.
> 
>> The important part is that 16 bits of subnets is enough to play
>> algorithmic tricks with the subnet part of your address too, whereas
>> this is much more difficult with fewer bits.  No, you don't need to do
>> it.  But you CAN.  The sparse IPv6 addressing model is about opening up
>> possibilities.  Note that those possibilities includes restricting
>> yourself to using a single address.  You don't have to use all your 2^80
>> addresses :)
> 
> I completely agree.
> 
>> 
>> And for the ISPs, using /48 for every user means fewer prefix lengths to
>> consider for routing and address management. Sure, we manage diverse
>> prefix lengths in IPv4 today, but why not take advantage of this
>> possible simplification if we can? Only those living on bugs will object
>> to simpler address databases and routing filters.
> 
> Again, you’re preaching to the choir.
> 
> Owen
> 

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

[Ca By]

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Does this mean you are negligent for not supporting IPv6 on my phone on
> your network?
>
> My phone is perfectly capable of IPv6, yet because it doesn’t support your
> particular religion
> about IPv4 translation, you refuse to support IPv6 on it.
>
> When is T-Mobile going to fix their IPv6 implementation and stop ignoring
> the #1 market
> leading phone manufacturer?
>
> Owen
>
>
Apple has an ipv6-only plan in the link above. They have committed to
remove the ipv4 dependent apps from the app store. Once the ipv4-only apps
are bannished, i dont see any roadblocks for ipv6 on iPhone.

While you say there is a religious war, i am saying Apple outlined a plan
for ipv6-only and T-Mobile is likely to follow that plan from Apple.

CB



> > On Dec 22, 2015, at 04:45 , Ca By >
> wrote:
> >
> > TL;DR version: the data shows you are negligent if your eyeball content
> > (cdn, cloud, ...) does  not support native ipv6.
> >
> > With the NAT and IPv4 leasing threads lingering on, i figured it was time
> > for an update on how the other half live
> >
> > More than 1/3 of North America mobile traffic to the top websites is end
> to
> > end ipv6
> >
> http://www.worldipv6launch.org/2015-wrapup-more-than-13-us-mobile-traffic-is-ipv6-and-still-growing/
> >
> > The trend is clearly growing, and as AT and Sprint catch up with
> T-Mobile
> > and Verizon, the acceleration to 50% should be easily achieved.
> > Furthermore, only one mobile carrier has iPhone dual-stacked today
> (afaik),
> > but Apple has a plan for banning ipv4-only apps and has delivered the
> > required features for having ipv6-only iphones in 2016 with these iOS 9.2
> > features
> >
> >
> https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetWeb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition.html
> >
> > On some mobile providers, ipv6 is already dominant and ipv4 is waning.
> Once
> > iPhones updates to ipv6-only as described above, ipv4 will only be a
> corner
> > case of operations.  This comes with added benefit that ipv6 is faster :
> >
> >
> https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/
> >
> > At least in mobile, the change to ipv6 has been quick and the pace is
> > increasing -- not just on ipv6 deployment but also on ipv4 shutdown. I
> know
> > many people liken ipv6 to "the boy who cried wolf", so be it, the
> > data shows the ipv6 wolf is here.  Or perhapsin hind   sight, we will see
> > the right metaphor was "the tortoise and the hare" or "the little engine
> > that could"... Or even better IPv4 is John Henry.  It was the best in its
> > time, but times have changed.
> >
> > CB
>
>

Re: How to update IPv6 geolocation data? Google sites blocked.

[Jon Lewis]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, David Sotnick wrote:


Hello, and Season's Greetings!

We recently lit up a new IPv6-connected location and expanded our
ARIN-allocated /48 network to a /44 network to accommodate the additional
location (and future locations).

However, since moving our small satellite office off our primary /48 and
onto their own /48 as part of our /44 network, the users at that office are
receiving messages from e.g. YouTube that the "user has not made this
content available in your country".

How does one go about updating this v6 geolocation data? This is impacting
a bunch of our users.


Using a smart phone on the wifi at that office (obviously, the WIFI 
network has to be providing IPv6, or bridged to a network providing IPv6), 
go to google.com in a web browser (not the google app), and click near the 
bottom of the page "Use precise location".  AFAIK, that provides to GOOG 
your GPS coordinates.  It still might take a week for them to update 
everything.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

interconnection costs

[Reza Motamedi]

Hi NANOG

We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?

I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
whole ecosystem a little bit better.


Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

Re: Nat

[Bjørn Mork]

Owen DeLong  writes:
>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of
>> subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating
>> 16 bits worth of subnets. How does that compare to the entire IPv4
>> Internet?
>
> I have more than 16 subnets in my house, so I can cite at least one
> house with need for more than 4 bits just in a hand-coded network.
>
> Considering the future possibilities for automated topological
> hierarchies using DHCP-PD with dynamic joining and pruning routers, I
> think 8 bits is simply not enough to allow for the kind of flexibility
> we’d like to give to developers, so 16 bits seems like a reasonable
> compromise.

Thanks for summarizing why /48 for everybody is possible.  But I fear
that is not helping much against arguments based on "need". I believe it
is difficult to argue that anyone needs any IP address at all, given
that there are lots of people in the world who seem to survive just fine
without one...

So, with that sorted out, let's consider what you can do with 16 bits of
subnets.  One example is checksum neutral prefix translation (RFC6296)
without touching the interface id bits . Let's say you have two upstream
ISPs handing you the prefixes A/48 and B/56.  Neither offer any
multihoming support to residential users and both do BCP38 of course. So
you use B/56 internally and do prefix translation to allow your router
to select upstream without involving the clients.  Thanks to the A/48
from the first ISP, you are able to choose a set of 256 (or possibly 255
since 0x cannot be used) checksum neutral subnet pairs.

Yes, I know. Evil. No need. No CPE support.  Etc.

The important part is that 16 bits of subnets is enough to play
algorithmic tricks with the subnet part of your address too, whereas
this is much more difficult with fewer bits.  No, you don't need to do
it.  But you CAN.  The sparse IPv6 addressing model is about opening up
possibilities.  Note that those possibilities includes restricting
yourself to using a single address.  You don't have to use all your 2^80
addresses :)

And for the ISPs, using /48 for every user means fewer prefix lengths to
consider for routing and address management. Sure, we manage diverse
prefix lengths in IPv4 today, but why not take advantage of this
possible simplification if we can? Only those living on bugs will object
to simpler address databases and routing filters.


Bjørn

Re: Looking for VPS providers with BGP session

[Alexis Rosen]

On Dec 7, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Philippe Bonvin via NANOG  wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm looking for providers around the world who are able to provide VPS with a 
> BGP session but it seems to be rather difficult to find. I have already found 
> a few with WHT/bgp.he.net/google but a little help would be appreciated.
> 
> Does anyone have contact or know people who can offer such services ?
> 
> If yes, please contact me off list.
> [...]

I am apparently 2 weeks behind on reading nanog, and haven't posted here in 
probably 17-18 years. We offer that service.

Philippe found us last week, so thanks to whoever pointed him our way...

/a

IPv4 shutdown in mobile

[Ca By]

TL;DR version: the data shows you are negligent if your eyeball content
(cdn, cloud, ...) does  not support native ipv6.

With the NAT and IPv4 leasing threads lingering on, i figured it was time
for an update on how the other half live

More than 1/3 of North America mobile traffic to the top websites is end to
end ipv6
http://www.worldipv6launch.org/2015-wrapup-more-than-13-us-mobile-traffic-is-ipv6-and-still-growing/

The trend is clearly growing, and as AT and Sprint catch up with T-Mobile
and Verizon, the acceleration to 50% should be easily achieved.
Furthermore, only one mobile carrier has iPhone dual-stacked today (afaik),
but Apple has a plan for banning ipv4-only apps and has delivered the
required features for having ipv6-only iphones in 2016 with these iOS 9.2
features

https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetWeb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition.html

On some mobile providers, ipv6 is already dominant and ipv4 is waning. Once
iPhones updates to ipv6-only as described above, ipv4 will only be a corner
case of operations.  This comes with added benefit that ipv6 is faster :

https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/

At least in mobile, the change to ipv6 has been quick and the pace is
increasing -- not just on ipv6 deployment but also on ipv4 shutdown. I know
many people liken ipv6 to "the boy who cried wolf", so be it, the
data shows the ipv6 wolf is here.  Or perhapsin hind   sight, we will see
the right metaphor was "the tortoise and the hare" or "the little engine
that could"... Or even better IPv4 is John Henry.  It was the best in its
time, but times have changed.

CB

Re: [NANOG] IPv4 subnets for lease?

[Fredrik Widell]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Nick Ellermann wrote:


Hi.

We lease /24's or more to customers since many years, but as someone later in 
the thread commented,
spammers will use this opportunity if they can, so we limit our customers to 
Sweden nowadays, and always check their earlier reputation before leasing space.

If you have Swedish customers you are welcome to send in an application.

( http://webb.resilans.se/registry/order-eng.html )





We have customers asking to lease IP space for BGP transit with us and other 
peers. But they are struggling to get at a minimum even a Class C, even though 
they have their own ASN. We don't have large amounts of free IPv4 space to 
lease out to a single customer in most cases anymore. Hope to at least 
introduce these customers to some contacts that may be able to help.
Do we know of any reputable sources that are leasing or selling IPv4 subnets as 
small as a /24 to satisfy their diversity needs? Thanks!

Sincerely,
Nick Ellermann - CTO & VP Cloud Services
BroadAspect

E: nellerm...@broadaspect.com
P: 703-297-4639
F: 703-996-4443

THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY 
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received 
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its 
attachments from all computers.




--

Mvh

Fredrik Widell Resilans AB http://www.resilans.se/
mail:   i...@resilans.se , fred...@resilans.se
phone:  +46 8 688 11 80

Re: interconnection costs

[James Bensley]

On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi  wrote:
> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
> whole ecosystem a little bit better.


Hi Reza,

I have a list of example items that need to be costed in below, it is
by no means a definitive list though:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2=1#


Cheers,
James.

Re: Nat

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 01:21 , Bjørn Mork  wrote:
> 
> Owen DeLong  writes:
>>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett  wrote:
>> 
>>> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of
>>> subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating
>>> 16 bits worth of subnets. How does that compare to the entire IPv4
>>> Internet?
>> 
>> I have more than 16 subnets in my house, so I can cite at least one
>> house with need for more than 4 bits just in a hand-coded network.
>> 
>> Considering the future possibilities for automated topological
>> hierarchies using DHCP-PD with dynamic joining and pruning routers, I
>> think 8 bits is simply not enough to allow for the kind of flexibility
>> we’d like to give to developers, so 16 bits seems like a reasonable
>> compromise.
> 
> Thanks for summarizing why /48 for everybody is possible.  But I fear
> that is not helping much against arguments based on "need". I believe it
> is difficult to argue that anyone needs any IP address at all, given
> that there are lots of people in the world who seem to survive just fine
> without one…

Arguments based on “need” don’t make any sense in an IPv6 context.

Sure, we shouldn’t be so profligate in our distribution of the address pool
that we run out well before the protocol’s useful life is exhausted, but I
think I’ve shown that the current allocation policies, including /48 have
adequate protection against that occurring.

Being more restrictive just for the sake of being more restrictive doesn’t
serve any purpose. It doesn’t help anyone. As such, I just don’t understand
those arguments. If someone can show me a tangible benefit from a more
restrictive policy, I’m open to considering it, but so far, none exists.

> So, with that sorted out, let's consider what you can do with 16 bits of
> subnets.  One example is checksum neutral prefix translation (RFC6296)
> without touching the interface id bits . Let's say you have two upstream
> ISPs handing you the prefixes A/48 and B/56.  Neither offer any
> multihoming support to residential users and both do BCP38 of course. So
> you use B/56 internally and do prefix translation to allow your router
> to select upstream without involving the clients.  Thanks to the A/48
> from the first ISP, you are able to choose a set of 256 (or possibly 255
> since 0x cannot be used) checksum neutral subnet pairs.

That’s a really icky alternative to simple BGP multihoming (which is what
I’m currently using at home).

Of course, not the worst, but a significantly bad part of this is the provider
that’s only giving you a /56 to begin with. ;-)

> Yes, I know. Evil. No need. No CPE support.  Etc.

True that.

> The important part is that 16 bits of subnets is enough to play
> algorithmic tricks with the subnet part of your address too, whereas
> this is much more difficult with fewer bits.  No, you don't need to do
> it.  But you CAN.  The sparse IPv6 addressing model is about opening up
> possibilities.  Note that those possibilities includes restricting
> yourself to using a single address.  You don't have to use all your 2^80
> addresses :)

I completely agree.

> 
> And for the ISPs, using /48 for every user means fewer prefix lengths to
> consider for routing and address management. Sure, we manage diverse
> prefix lengths in IPv4 today, but why not take advantage of this
> possible simplification if we can? Only those living on bugs will object
> to simpler address databases and routing filters.

Again, you’re preaching to the choir.

Owen

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

[Lee Howard]

On 12/22/15, 1:13 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong"
 wrote:

>Yet until Apple gets to that IPv6-only stage, you¹re refusing to support
>IPv6 for those of us
>that need it today even while we still need IPv4, too.
>
>Owen


Owen, you¹re out of line.

Lee



>
>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 10:08 , Ca By  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Owen DeLong >> wrote:
>> Does this mean you are negligent for not supporting IPv6 on my phone on
>>your network?
>> 
>> My phone is perfectly capable of IPv6, yet because it doesn¹t support
>>your particular religion
>> about IPv4 translation, you refuse to support IPv6 on it.
>> 
>> When is T-Mobile going to fix their IPv6 implementation and stop
>>ignoring the #1 market
>> leading phone manufacturer?
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>> Apple has an ipv6-only plan in the link above. They have committed to
>>remove the ipv4 dependent apps from the app store. Once the ipv4-only
>>apps are bannished, i dont see any roadblocks for ipv6 on iPhone.
>> 
>> While you say there is a religious war, i am saying Apple outlined a
>>plan for ipv6-only and T-Mobile is likely to follow that plan from
>>Apple. 
>> 
>> CB
>> 
>>  
>> > On Dec 22, 2015, at 04:45 , Ca By >
>>wrote:
>> >
>> > TL;DR version: the data shows you are negligent if your eyeball
>>content
>> > (cdn, cloud, ...) does  not support native ipv6.
>> >
>> > With the NAT and IPv4 leasing threads lingering on, i figured it was
>>time
>> > for an update on how the other half live
>> >
>> > More than 1/3 of North America mobile traffic to the top websites is
>>end to
>> > end ipv6
>> > 
>>http://www.worldipv6launch.org/2015-wrapup-more-than-13-us-mobile-traffic
>>-is-ipv6-and-still-growing/
>>>c-is-ipv6-and-still-growing/>
>> >
>> > The trend is clearly growing, and as AT and Sprint catch up with
>>T-Mobile
>> > and Verizon, the acceleration to 50% should be easily achieved.
>> > Furthermore, only one mobile carrier has iPhone dual-stacked today
>>(afaik),
>> > but Apple has a plan for banning ipv4-only apps and has delivered the
>> > required features for having ipv6-only iphones in 2016 with these iOS
>>9.2
>> > features
>> >
>> > 
>>https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetW
>>eb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Trans
>>ition/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition.html
>>>Web/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Tran
>>sition/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition.html>
>> >
>> > On some mobile providers, ipv6 is already dominant and ipv4 is
>>waning. Once
>> > iPhones updates to ipv6-only as described above, ipv4 will only be a
>>corner
>> > case of operations.  This comes with added benefit that ipv6 is
>>faster :
>> >
>> > 
>>https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on
>>-board/ 
>>>n-board/>
>> >
>> > At least in mobile, the change to ipv6 has been quick and the pace is
>> > increasing -- not just on ipv6 deployment but also on ipv4 shutdown.
>>I know
>> > many people liken ipv6 to "the boy who cried wolf", so be it, the
>> > data shows the ipv6 wolf is here.  Or perhapsin hind   sight, we will
>>see
>> > the right metaphor was "the tortoise and the hare" or "the little
>>engine
>> > that could"... Or even better IPv4 is John Henry.  It was the best in
>>its
>> > time, but times have changed.
>> >
>> > CB
>> 
>
>

Re: interconnection costs

[William Waites]

there is also the increasingly common pattern of "remote peering"
where you lease a circuit to an exchange point but do not establish a
presence in the facility. this can either be done with the last leg on
a dedicated cross-connect (so it looks to the exchange operator just
like any other connection except that it is to an intermediary and not
to you) or multiplexed on a single connection to the exchange operated
by a carrier that specialises in facilitating remote peering.

to the extent that this practice dramatically decouples the peering
graph from the underlying infrastructure graph it is debatable if this
is a wise or efficient strategy. on the other hand it significantly
widens the operational scope of bgp configuration knobs.

but the point is, you can do peering without a physical presence in a
location, and it is a common thing to do.

cheers,
-w

--
William Waites   |  School of Informatics
   https://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/  | University of Edinburgh
 https://hubs.net.uk/ |  HUBS AS60241

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Gavin Henry]

On list :)