Re: Spectrum technical contact

[Aaron1]

well, my comment about ddos rtbh using /32 BGP community is with regard to my 
provider spectrum which was previously time warner cable/charter AS 11427 is 
who I peer with

Aaron

> On Dec 21, 2018, at 5:40 PM, n...@imap.cc wrote:
> 
> Is this the right Spectrum? There's one that's aka Wave and are pretty good 
> and incredibly responsive to abuse reports, and then there's Spectrum 
> Cable/Charter, which is on par with residential Comcast service.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, at 2:01 PM, Bryan Holloway wrote:
>> http://as11404.net/communities.html
>> 
>> 11404:666 is probably what you want.

Re: Spectrum technical contact

[nop]

Is this the right Spectrum? There's one that's aka Wave and are pretty good and 
incredibly responsive to abuse reports, and then there's Spectrum 
Cable/Charter, which is on par with residential Comcast service.


On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, at 2:01 PM, Bryan Holloway wrote:
> http://as11404.net/communities.html
> 
> 11404:666 is probably what you want.

Re: Spectrum technical contact

[Bryan Holloway]

http://as11404.net/communities.html

11404:666 is probably what you want.


On 12/21/18 3:55 PM, Aaron1 wrote:

If you BGP neighbor with them you can send-community /32 advertisement to them, 
and the will remotely black hole it

Aaron


On Dec 21, 2018, at 3:51 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:

We have had a DOS attack for over 12 hours.  I simply want them to null route 
or black hole an address.  The traffic is filling one of our circus with them.

The farthest I got was them telling me they can't do route changes because 
we're not public safety.

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

Re: Spectrum technical contact

[Aaron1]

If you BGP neighbor with them you can send-community /32 advertisement to them, 
and the will remotely black hole it 

Aaron

> On Dec 21, 2018, at 3:51 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> We have had a DOS attack for over 12 hours.  I simply want them to null route 
> or black hole an address.  The traffic is filling one of our circus with them.
> 
> The farthest I got was them telling me they can't do route changes because 
> we're not public safety.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373

Spectrum technical contact

[Josh Luthman]

We have had a DOS attack for over 12 hours.  I simply want them to null
route or black hole an address.  The traffic is filling one of our circus
with them.

The farthest I got was them telling me they can't do route changes because
we're not public safety.

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

Re: Stupid Question maybe?

[Florian Weimer]

* Baldur Norddahl:

> Why do we still have network equipment, where half the configuration
> requires netmask notation, the other half requires CIDR and to throw you
> off, they also included inverse netmasks.

Some also drop the prefix length in diagnostic output if it matches
that of the address class.  So you still need to know about address
classes, unfortunately.

Re: Network instability 12956 <=> 18881

[Jared Mauch]

> On Dec 21, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
> 
> 
> They are both Telefónica operations; 12956 is TIWS/Telxius, 18881 is a CLEC 
> they bought a few years ago, previously known as GVT. 
> Could be a cable cut in SAM-1, the submarine fiber system operated by Telxius 
> (the cable is also known as Emergia). 


This is the 2nd time in the past month or so we saw this and at least last time 
when I posted to NANOG I got no reply but the route flapping stopped 
immediately :-)

- Jared

Re: Network instability 12956 <=> 18881

[Rubens Kuhl]

They are both Telefónica operations; 12956 is TIWS/Telxius, 18881 is a CLEC
they bought a few years ago, previously known as GVT.
Could be a cable cut in SAM-1, the submarine fiber system operated by
Telxius (the cable is also known as Emergia).



Rubens


On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:24 PM Jared Mauch  wrote:

> Does anyone know what’s going on here?  There’s a lot of BGP churn coming
> from this network edge.
>
> - Jared

Network instability 12956 <=> 18881

[Jared Mauch]

Does anyone know what’s going on here?  There’s a lot of BGP churn coming from 
this network edge.

- Jared

contact from 7029

[Ricardo Patara]

Any contact from asn 7029 in the list?

It seems there is incorrect announcement being originated in that ASN.

If anyone from that ASN in the list, fell free to contact me privately.

thanks

RE: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Robert DeVita]

The biggest difference we see is that the “non commercial” IX’s are now 
building metro fabrics across multiple different datacenter providers. When you 
look at the costs, you need to look at the colo as part of that cost also. 
Allowing datacenters to compete for space and power drives down the costs for 
end users while also allowing them to connect to the fabric.

[https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/c4ed298e-00ea-415c-8059-9ce09ac88788/logo/f3a10962-7bab-4600-a5fa-560682049597.jpg/:/rs=h:125]

Robert DeVita

Managing Director

p:

214-305-2444

e:

radev...@mejeticks.com

[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/linkedin_sig.png]




From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 9:11 AM
To: Darin Steffl 
Cc: NANOG Mailing List 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

Someone's typically paying the difference in a non-profit IX. Someone's 
donating piles of cash, free dark fiber, free colo, etc. You're either paying 
your own way, or you have a port subsidized by someone else. There's not 
necessarily anything wrong with that, but you have to make sure you count that 
when you talk about "cost".

They're also over twice the size, and in half the number of buildings (per 
PeeringDB, anyway). They've also been around over twice as long. Scale helps 
with cost.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]

From: "Darin Steffl" mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>>
To: "Mike Hammett" mailto:na...@ics-il.net>>
Cc: "Mehmet Akcin" mailto:meh...@akcin.net>>, "NANOG Mailing 
List" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:34:32 AM
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
http://micemn.net/services.html

MICE in Minneapolis is a great IX that we are on and their port fees are very 
reasonable. They used to be completely free up until this year. Even so, their 
fees are virtually nothing which encourages more operators to connect to it 
versus For-Profit IX's where sometimes the fees are almost as much as transit.

For example Midwest-IX is $9,300 per year for a 10G port but MICE is only $250 
per year. That's a HUGE difference and MICE also has way more peers and traffic 
overall due to how easy and cheap it is to join.

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:27 AM Mike Hammett 
mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Not all transit is cheap and not all transit is good quality, regardless of 
what it costs. ;-)

At our IX, we regularly see clients whose total network usage goes up once 
they're on the IX.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]

From: "Mehmet Akcin" mailto:meh...@akcin.net>>
To: "Clayton Zekelman" mailto:clay...@mnsi.net>>
Cc: "Mike Hammett" mailto:na...@ics-il.net>>, "NANOG Mailing 
List" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>, "Tim Raphael" 
mailto:raphael.timo...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:19:43 AM
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
Torix and Six are great examples.

If you want to be for profit, make 

Re: Real-time BGP hijacking detection: ARTEMIS-1.0.0 just released

[Vasileios Kotronis]

Exactly for this case, besides what Jared mentioned, there is the possibility of using a third party mitigation service. This service can be provided by e.g., a DDoS protection provider since it requires announcing the exact /24 (or other prefix) from another AS which can attract and tunnel the traffic back to the victim. This is very close to current practices in the context of DDoS mitigation; the context is different however the underlying mechanisms are similar. For more details on the effectiveness of this strategy, please refer to Section 6.2.2 of our ToN paper (available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01085).The current tool offers real time detection, with such mitigation mechanisms being under investigation.Best regards,VasileiosIn Dec 21, 2018 5:10 PM, Jared Mauch  wrote:Folks have studied announcing a /25 etc.. and it can help because many providers will accept them.. it won’t get everyone, but longer than /24 prefixes do help.



- Jared



> On Dec 21, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Kody Vicknair  wrote:

> 

> I'm curious, If the highjacked prefix is a /24 (subset of your much larger /22) and you can only tie the highjacked prefix, at that point how effective is the mitigation outside of a default bgp route selection process?

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> -Original Message-

> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Vasileios Kotronis

> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:23 AM

> To: nanog@nanog.org

> Subject: Real-time BGP hijacking detection: ARTEMIS-1.0.0 just released

> 

> Dear operators,

> 

> FORTH's INSPIRE group and CAIDA are delighted to announce the public release of the ARTEMIS BGP prefix hijacking detection tool, available as open-source software at https://github.com/FORTH-ICS-INSPIRE/artemis

> 

> ARTEMIS is designed to be operated by an AS in order to monitor BGP for potential hijacking attempts against its own prefixes. The system detects such attacks within seconds, enabling immediate mitigation. The current release has been tested at a major greek ISP, a dual-homed edge academic network, and a major US R backbone network.

> 

> We would be happy if you'd give it a try and provide feedback. Feel free to make pull requests on GitHub and help us make this a true community project.

> 

> ARTEMIS is funded by European Research Council (ERC) grant agreement no.

> 338402 (NetVolution Project), the RIPE NCC Community Projects 2017, the Comcast Innovation Fund, US NSF grants OAC-1848641 and CNS-1423659 and US DHS S contract HHSP233201600012C.

> 

> Best regards,

> Vasileios

> 

> --

> ===

> Vasileios Kotronis

> Postdoctoral Researcher, member of the INSPIRE Group INSPIRE = INternet Security, Privacy, and Intelligence REsearch Telecommunications and Networks Lab (TNL) Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) Leoforos Plastira 100, Heraklion 70013, Greece e-mail : vkotro...@ics.forth.gr

> url: http://inspire.edu.gr

> ===

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

Re: Announcing Peering-LAN prefixes to customers

[Steven Bakker]

Hi Dominic,

On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 19:15 +0100, Dominic Schallert wrote:
> Dear Job, Michael, Ross,
> thank you very much for sharing your opinion, the detailed info and
> references. That’s pretty much what I excpected.
> Just wondered because I couldn’t find any IXP Conection Agreement
> stating this „issue“ explicitly yet.
> 
> Maybe MANRS IXP actions has some recommendations regarding this,
> checking that now.

We don't have it in our connection agreement as such, but it is in
section 3.2 of our (admittedly aged) Configuration Guide:

https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/config-guide#3.2

   3.2. Peering LAN Prefix

   The IPv4 prefix for the AMS-IX peering LAN (80.249.208.0/21) is part
   of AS1200, and is not supposed to be globally routable. This means
   the following:

 1.  Do not configure "network 80.249.208.0/21" in your router's
 BGP configuration (seriously, we have seen this happen!).
 2.  Do not redistribute the route, a supernet, or a more specific
 outside of your AS. We (AS1200) announce it with a no-export
 attribute, please honour it.

   In short, you can take the view that the Peering LAN is a link-local 
   address range and you may decide to not even redistribute it
   internally (but in that case you may want to set a static route for
   management access so you can troubleshoot peering, etc.).

AFAIK, pretty much all IXP operators take this view.

Cheers,
Steven


> Best wishes and happy holidays
> 
> Cheers
> Dominic
> 
> 
> > Am 20.12.2018 um 19:06 schrieb Michael Still 
> > :
> > 
> > IXP LANs should not be announced via BGP (or your IGP either). See
> > section 3.1:
> > http://nabcop.org/index.php/BCOP-Exchange_Points_v2
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:50 PM Dominic Schallert <
> > d...@schallert.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > this might be a stupid question but today I was discussing with a
> > > colleague if Peering-LAN prefixes should be re-
> > > distributed/announced to direct customers/peers. My standpoint is
> > > that in any case, Peering-LAN prefixes should be filtered and not
> > > announced to peers/customers because a Peering-LAN represents
> > > some sort of DMZ and there is simply no need for them to be
> > > reachable by third-parties not being physically connected to an
> > > IXP themselves. Also from a security point of view, a lot of new
> > > issues might occur in this situation.
> > > 
> > > I’ve been seeing a few transit providers lately announcing (even
> > > reachable) Peering-LAN prefixes (for example DE-CIX Peering LAN)
> > > to their customers. I’m wondering if there is any document or RFC
> > > particularly describing this matter?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Dominic
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > [stillwa...@gmail.com ~]$ cat .signature
> > cat: .signature: No such file or directory
> > [stillwa...@gmail.com ~]$


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Real-time BGP hijacking detection: ARTEMIS-1.0.0 just released

[Vasileios Kotronis]

Hello,

it is quite easy to install on a VM, you will not need special 
infrastructure,


but only two pieces of software to be able to run lightweight containers

(docker-ce and docker-compose).

In fact, this is how we test it ourselves :).

We will consider publishing a standalone VM is this helps testing more 
(details


to come in the project's' wiki pages).

Best,

Vasileios

On 20/12/18 10:40 μ.μ., M. Omer GOLGELI wrote:

Hi Vasileios,

Congratulations of building this.

Wanted to try it out as a VM but frankly...
The "docker" part put me off...


M.
---


On 2018-12-20 20:23, Vasileios Kotronis wrote:

Dear operators,

FORTH's INSPIRE group and CAIDA are delighted to announce the public
release of the ARTEMIS BGP prefix hijacking detection tool, available
as open-source software at
https://github.com/FORTH-ICS-INSPIRE/artemis

ARTEMIS is designed to be operated by an AS in order to monitor BGP
for potential hijacking attempts against its own prefixes. The system
detects such attacks within seconds, enabling immediate mitigation.
The current release has been tested at a major greek ISP, a dual-homed
edge academic network, and a major US R backbone network.

We would be happy if you'd give it a try and provide feedback. Feel
free to make pull requests on GitHub and help us make this a true
community project.

ARTEMIS is funded by European Research Council (ERC) grant agreement
no. 338402 (NetVolution Project), the RIPE NCC Community Projects
2017, the Comcast Innovation Fund, US NSF grants OAC-1848641 and
CNS-1423659 and US DHS S contract HHSP233201600012C.

Best regards,
Vasileios


--
===
Vasileios Kotronis
Postdoctoral Researcher, member of the INSPIRE Group
INSPIRE = INternet Security, Privacy, and Intelligence REsearch
Telecommunications and Networks Lab (TNL)
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
Leoforos Plastira 100, Heraklion 70013, Greece
Tel: +302810391241 Office: G-060
e-mail : vkotro...@ics.forth.gr
url: http://inspire.edu.gr
===

RE: routeviews.org pending delete

[Eric Smith]

Hey folks,

Thanks for the heads-up, we've already been working through this with Network 
Solutions.  The project has switched stewards recently and the renewal 
notification got lost in the transition.  The NS records should point back to 
the correct routeviews.org address now.  We're also working through the 
permanent transfer of ownership to avoid this in the future.  

Eric

 Forwarded Message 
Subject:
RE: routeviews.org pending delete
Date:
Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:29:03 +
From:
David Guo via NANOG 
Reply-To:
David Guo 
To:
Siyuan Miao , nanog@nanog.org 

It’s your cache resule

 

root@server ~ # whois routeviews.org

Domain Name: ROUTEVIEWS.ORG

Registry Domain ID: D48496876-LROR

Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.networksolutions.com

Registrar URL: http://www.networksolutions.com

Updated Date: 2018-12-17T18:54:32Z

Creation Date: 2000-12-14T23:05:47Z

Registry Expiry Date: 2019-12-14T23:05:47Z

Registrar Registration Expiration Date:

Registrar: Network Solutions, LLC

Registrar IANA ID: 2

Registrar Abuse Contact Email: ab...@web.com

Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680

Reseller:

Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited 
https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited

Domain Status: autoRenewPeriod https://icann.org/epp#autoRenewPeriod

Registrant Organization:

Registrant State/Province: OR

Registrant Country: US

Name Server: GUELAH.SHRUBBERY.NET

Name Server: PHLOEM.UOREGON.EDU

DNSSEC: unsigned

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Siyuan Miao
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 8:34 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: routeviews.org pending delete

 

All,

 

routeviews.org is pending delete now.

 

Domain Name: ROUTEVIEWS.ORG

Registry Domain ID: D48496876-LROR

Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.networksolutions.com

Registrar URL: http://www.networksolutions.com

Updated Date: 2018-12-17T09:33:18Z

Creation Date: 2000-12-14T23:05:47Z

Registry Expiry Date: 2019-12-14T23:05:47Z

Registrar Registration Expiration Date:

Registrar: Network Solutions, LLC

Registrar IANA ID: 2

Registrar Abuse Contact Email: ab...@web.com

Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680

Reseller:

Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited 
https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited

Domain Status: autoRenewPeriod https://icann.org/epp#autoRenewPeriod

Registrant Organization: Network Solutions LLC

Registrant State/Province: FL

Registrant Country: US

Name Server: NS1.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM

Name Server: NS2.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM

DNSSEC: unsigned

URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form 
https://www.icann.org/wicf/)

>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2018-12-17T12:28:37Z <<<

 

 

routeviews.org.   86400 IN   NS   ns2.pendingrenewaldeletion.com.

routeviews.org.   86400 IN   NS   ns1.pendingrenewaldeletion.com.

 

I was wondering if there is anyone here can contact them to renew it if 
this project is still
alive.

 

Regards,

Siyuan 

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: JunOS Fusion Provider Edge

[Nikos Leontsinis]

There is a fundamental product limitation.  CoS on Cascade port  for MX is not 
officially supported as well QFX acting as AD.
I agree with those who perceive all these approaches as  proprietary lock-in 
(disguised as cheap).

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Vincentz Petzholtz
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 9:01 AM
To: nanog 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: JunOS Fusion Provider Edge

Hi there,

About Juniper Fusion PE and our experience with it.

For example, you can't get SNMP oids for light levels or even read them right 
from the CLI.
Sure it’s possible but also with a big „meh“. Here is how:
"show interfaces diagnostics optics satellite “ (<- on the MX)
BUT at least with MX Junos 16.1R7 and aligned SAT Image aka SNOS these values 
are wrong
by a pretty big offset. Juniper promised they already fixed it but we can’t 
confirm (at least not in MX Junos 16.1).
Soon we will take a look at MX Junos 17.3 with aligned sat image.

 I've also heard you can have them do local L2 forwarding, which can be nice 
for latency and conserving uplink bandwidth, but we don't do any L2 that way so 
I wouldn't know the implications
Same thing here … we don’t really need it. At least it’s on the roadmap and/or 
already implemented with higher Junos/SNOS versions.

From what we can tell though, it does give you Trio L3 performance and features 
with a MUCH cheaper port cost which is exactly what we were looking for, the 
extended reach of the chassis was just a fantastic bonus.
Yep, that is really amazing and the reason we use it on many MXes. You can get 
rid of almost all ports you want (restrictions apply tho).

We also REALLY like that we can have one pair of MX dists for a whole data 
center with hundreds of thousands of square feet of raised floor and deploy 
QFX5100 or EX4300 switches in every pod and haul back over just a few pairs of 
fiber. Saves a lot of time because all that's required to turn up a new 
connection is a cross connect in the pod. It also allows us to offer copper 
ports very far away from the MX device, which would normally require media 
converters.
We use Junos PE NOT as a replacement for any switch and/or ip fabrics within a 
datacenter. We use it to get rid of many customer/client ports (mainly 1G and 
10G ports)
which were directly connected to our MXes before. Atm I would not recommend 
using any closed fabrics beyond that scope. If it works for you … ok.

We've wanted to experiment with doing this over dark fiber in the metro as 
well, but we want to feel out any kinks locally before we add additional 
failure modes.
At the moment? Don’t do it. If you run mpls on so called „core router/dwdm/wan 
facing ports“ you have to know that this is totally not supported on extended 
satellite ports.
It’s not even on the roadmap. I already started to „collect“ some other ISPs to 
push juniper towards this feature because technically there no
real reason why fusion should NOT be capable of pushing some mpls labels on 
already tagged 802.1br packets.

Best regards,
Vincentz
—
PS: some have received this mail multiple times because I’ve send it from the 
wrong account … time for vacation I guess.


Am 17.12.2018 um 19:26 schrieb Matt Erculiani 
mailto:merculi...@gmail.com>>:

Fusion has made a lot more sense since Juniper changed the licensing model from 
every switch AND the MX to just the MX.

We've deployed it in some of our sites. It is very cool from a forwarding plane 
perspective, but from a control plane standpoint it's very...meh. For example, 
you can't get SNMP oids for light levels or even read them right from the CLI. 
You have to log into the satellite switch like you would log into an FPC just 
to get light levels. That's probably the dumbest thing we've dealt with though. 
I've also heard you can have them do local L2 forwarding, which can be nice for 
latency and conserving uplink bandwidth, but we don't do any L2 that way so I 
wouldn't know the implications. From what we can tell though, it does give you 
Trio L3 performance and features with a MUCH cheaper port cost which is exactly 
what we were looking for, the extended reach of the chassis was just a 
fantastic bonus.

We also REALLY like that we can have one pair of MX dists for a whole data 
center with hundreds of thousands of square feet of raised floor and deploy 
QFX5100 or EX4300 switches in every pod and haul back over just a few pairs of 
fiber. Saves a lot of time because all that's required to turn up a new 
connection is a cross connect in the pod. It also allows us to offer copper 
ports very far away from the MX device, which would normally require media 
converters.

We've wanted to experiment with doing this over dark fiber in the metro as 
well, but we want to feel out any kinks locally before we add additional 
failure modes.

Very interested in hearing about other's experiences with Fusion, good, bad, 
and ugly.

-Matt

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:08 PM Mehmet Akcin 
mailto:meh...@akcin.net>> wrote:
Hey there

Any ISP 

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 22 Dec, 2018

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  731372
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  281422
Deaggregation factor:  2.60
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  352021
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 62796
Prefixes per ASN: 11.65
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   54191
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   23540
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:8605
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:257
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.0
Max AS path length visible:  30
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 16327)  25
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:36
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:38
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  25275
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   20537
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:   88449
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:17
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:268
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2838514337
Equivalent to 169 /8s, 48 /16s and 74 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   76.7
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   76.7
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.1
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  244208

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   199658
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   56861
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.51
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  196780
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:81025
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:9333
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   21.08
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   2641
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1395
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.0
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 29
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   4329
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  768797056
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 210 /16s and 233 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-139577
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 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, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:216410
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   102834
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.10
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   215624
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:103383
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18304
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:11.78
ARIN 

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Jay Hanke]

MICE is technically a cooperative not a non-profit. The fees cover the
costs and just the costs and the members are owners.

Also MICE does not provide any transport. All transport to remote locations
is provided by the network hosting the remote switch.

Jay

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, 9:16 AM Mike Hammett  Someone's typically paying the difference in a non-profit IX. Someone's
> donating piles of cash, free dark fiber, free colo, etc. You're either
> paying your own way, or you have a port subsidized by someone else. There's
> not necessarily anything wrong with that, but you have to make sure you
> count that when you talk about "cost".
>
> They're also over twice the size, and in half the number of buildings (per
> PeeringDB, anyway). They've also been around over twice as long. Scale
> helps with cost.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
> *To: *"Mike Hammett" 
> *Cc: *"Mehmet Akcin" , "NANOG Mailing List" <
> nanog@nanog.org>
> *Sent: *Friday, December 21, 2018 8:34:32 AM
> *Subject: *Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
>
> http://micemn.net/services.html
>
> MICE in Minneapolis is a great IX that we are on and their port fees are
> very reasonable. They used to be completely free up until this year. Even
> so, their fees are virtually nothing which encourages more operators to
> connect to it versus For-Profit IX's where sometimes the fees are almost as
> much as transit.
>
> For example Midwest-IX is $9,300 per year for a 10G port but MICE is only
> $250 per year. That's a HUGE difference and MICE also has way more peers
> and traffic overall due to how easy and cheap it is to join.
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:27 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Not all transit is cheap and not all transit is good quality, regardless
>> of what it costs. ;-)
>>
>> At our IX, we regularly see clients whose total network usage goes up
>> once they're on the IX.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Mehmet Akcin" 
>> *To: *"Clayton Zekelman" 
>> *Cc: *"Mike Hammett" , "NANOG Mailing List" <
>> nanog@nanog.org>, "Tim Raphael" 
>> *Sent: *Friday, December 21, 2018 8:19:43 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
>>
>> Torix and Six are great examples.
>>
>> If you want to be for profit, make sure to publish port pricing and keep
>> it fair. Transit is cheap and good quality
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 08:14 Clayton Zekelman  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> TorIX is a great example of a not for profit IX that is very successful.
>>>
>>> https://www.torix.ca/
>>>
>>> A very dedicated team of people provide an incredible level of service.
>>>
>>> Thave a very transparent process.  Their pricing is listed up front on
>>> their website:
>>>
>>> https://www.torix.ca/peering/#pricing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 09:03 AM 21/12/2018, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as neutral, I meant separate from the datacenters in which
>>> they're housed. People in NA seem to think there are only two kinds of
>>> IXes, Equinix, DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>>
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Tim Raphael" 
>>> *To: *"NANOG Mailing List" 
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
>>>
>>> The other point to consider is that a NFP can justify more locations and
>>> offer services (such as extended reach) that don’t have the same profit
>>> margins or ROI as for-profits.
>>> This often leads to greater value to those with 

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Mike Hammett]

I think anyone not Equinix, DRT, CoreSite, etc. is building into multiple 
datacenter providers in their markets, some just more aggressively than others. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Robert DeVita"  
To: "Mike Hammett" , "Darin Steffl"  
Cc: "NANOG Mailing List"  
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 9:37:52 AM 
Subject: RE: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 



The biggest difference we see is that the “non commercial” IX’s are now 
building metro fabrics across multiple different datacenter providers. When you 
look at the costs, you need to look at the colo as part of that cost also. 
Allowing datacenters to compete for space and power drives down the costs for 
end users while also allowing them to connect to the fabric. 



https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/c4ed298e-00ea-415c-8059-9ce09ac88788/logo/f3a10962-7bab-4600-a5fa-560682049597.jpg/:/rs=h:125
  

Robert DeVita 

Managing Director 

p:  
214-305-2444 

e:  
radev...@mejeticks.com 

http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/linkedin_sig.png




From: NANOG < nanog-boun...@nanog.org > On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 9:11 AM 
To: Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
Cc: NANOG Mailing List < nanog@nanog.org > 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 


Someone's typically paying the difference in a non-profit IX. Someone's 
donating piles of cash, free dark fiber, free colo, etc. You're either paying 
your own way, or you have a port subsidized by someone else. There's not 
necessarily anything wrong with that, but you have to make sure you count that 
when you talk about "cost". 



They're also over twice the size, and in half the number of buildings (per 
PeeringDB, anyway). They've also been around over twice as long. Scale helps 
with cost. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -


From: "Darin Steffl" < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
To: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > 
Cc: "Mehmet Akcin" < meh...@akcin.net >, "NANOG Mailing List" < nanog@nanog.org 
> 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:34:32 AM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 


http://micemn.net/services.html 



MICE in Minneapolis is a great IX that we are on and their port fees are very 
reasonable. They used to be completely free up until this year. Even so, their 
fees are virtually nothing which encourages more operators to connect to it 
versus For-Profit IX's where sometimes the fees are almost as much as transit. 



For example Midwest-IX is $9,300 per year for a 10G port but MICE is only $250 
per year. That's a HUGE difference and MICE also has way more peers and traffic 
overall due to how easy and cheap it is to join. 



On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:27 AM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Not all transit is cheap and not all transit is good quality, regardless of 
what it costs. ;-) 

At our IX, we regularly see clients whose total network usage goes up once 
they're on the IX. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




From: "Mehmet Akcin" < meh...@akcin.net > 
To: "Clayton Zekelman" < clay...@mnsi.net > 
Cc: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net >, "NANOG Mailing List" < nanog@nanog.org 
>, "Tim Raphael" < raphael.timo...@gmail.com > 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:19:43 AM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 


Torix and Six are great examples. 



If you want to be for profit, make sure to publish port pricing and keep it 
fair. Transit is cheap and good quality 




On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 08:14 Clayton Zekelman < clay...@mnsi.net > wrote: 




TorIX is a great example of a not for profit IX that is very successful. 

https://www.torix.ca/ 

A very dedicated team of people provide an incredible level of service. 

Thave a very transparent process. Their pricing is listed up front on their 
website: 

https://www.torix.ca/peering/#pricing 



At 09:03 AM 21/12/2018, Mike Hammett wrote: 


As far as neutral, I meant separate from the datacenters in which they're 
housed. People in NA seem to think there are only two kinds of IXes, Equinix, 
DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 


From: "Tim Raphael" < raphael.timo...@gmail.com > 
To: "NANOG Mailing List" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 

The other point to consider is that a NFP can justify more locations and offer 
services (such as extended reach) that don’t have the same profit margins or 
ROI as for-profits. 
This often leads to greater value to those with smaller networks and 

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Mike Hammett]

Someone's typically paying the difference in a non-profit IX. Someone's 
donating piles of cash, free dark fiber, free colo, etc. You're either paying 
your own way, or you have a port subsidized by someone else. There's not 
necessarily anything wrong with that, but you have to make sure you count that 
when you talk about "cost". 


They're also over twice the size, and in half the number of buildings (per 
PeeringDB, anyway). They've also been around over twice as long. Scale helps 
with cost. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Darin Steffl"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Mehmet Akcin" , "NANOG Mailing List"  
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:34:32 AM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 



http://micemn.net/services.html 



MICE in Minneapolis is a great IX that we are on and their port fees are very 
reasonable. They used to be completely free up until this year. Even so, their 
fees are virtually nothing which encourages more operators to connect to it 
versus For-Profit IX's where sometimes the fees are almost as much as transit. 


For example Midwest-IX is $9,300 per year for a 10G port but MICE is only $250 
per year. That's a HUGE difference and MICE also has way more peers and traffic 
overall due to how easy and cheap it is to join. 


On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:27 AM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Not all transit is cheap and not all transit is good quality, regardless of 
what it costs. ;-) 

At our IX, we regularly see clients whose total network usage goes up once 
they're on the IX. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 



From: "Mehmet Akcin" < meh...@akcin.net > 
To: "Clayton Zekelman" < clay...@mnsi.net > 
Cc: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net >, "NANOG Mailing List" < nanog@nanog.org 
>, "Tim Raphael" < raphael.timo...@gmail.com > 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:19:43 AM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 



Torix and Six are great examples. 


If you want to be for profit, make sure to publish port pricing and keep it 
fair. Transit is cheap and good quality 



On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 08:14 Clayton Zekelman < clay...@mnsi.net > wrote: 




TorIX is a great example of a not for profit IX that is very successful. 

https://www.torix.ca/ 

A very dedicated team of people provide an incredible level of service. 

Thave a very transparent process. Their pricing is listed up front on their 
website: 

https://www.torix.ca/peering/#pricing 



At 09:03 AM 21/12/2018, Mike Hammett wrote: 


As far as neutral, I meant separate from the datacenters in which they're 
housed. People in NA seem to think there are only two kinds of IXes, Equinix, 
DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 


From: "Tim Raphael" < raphael.timo...@gmail.com > 
To: "NANOG Mailing List" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 

The other point to consider is that a NFP can justify more locations and offer 
services (such as extended reach) that don’t have the same profit margins or 
ROI as for-profits. 
This often leads to greater value to those with smaller networks and fewer 
customers allowing them to grow and expand without increased aggregation or 
transit costs. This in-turn leads to a richer array of providers and chips away 
at the monopolies in niche markets. 

The NFP IXP I work for focuses on providing value to the broader community and 
the Internet as a whole - especially somewhere like Australia which has unique 
constraints. 

Additionally, “Neutral†and For-Profit doesn’t always compute in my mind, 
there will always be commercial alliances that lead to not-total neutrality. 
When a NFP is owned by it’s members there has to be 100% transparency in 
organisational decisions around member funds and resources which ensures 
accountability reliability. 






- Tim 


> On 21 Dec 2018, at 3:58 am, Brielle Bruns < br...@2mbit.com > wrote: 
> 
> On 12/20/2018 12:51 PM, Aaron wrote: 
>> Probably price. Also perception of value. If you're a for profit enterprise 
>> then they're paying for interconnection plus your bump. If you're non-profit 
>> the perception is that there is a larger value because there's no bump. 
>> Whether that's true or not, who knows but that's the perception I've heard. 
> 
> Depending on the size of the non-profit, I'd almost compare it to how the 
> hospitals are here in Boise. 
> 
> The non-profits are oversized, monopolistic, price gouging, etc. Their care 
> can be pretty meh, esp since they bought up all the little independent 
> clinics (yay, ER pricing for a basic family clinic visit). 
> 
> The for-profit smaller clinics and hospitals run a pretty 

Re: Real-time BGP hijacking detection: ARTEMIS-1.0.0 just released

[Jared Mauch]

Folks have studied announcing a /25 etc.. and it can help because many 
providers will accept them.. it won’t get everyone, but longer than /24 
prefixes do help.

- Jared

> On Dec 21, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Kody Vicknair  wrote:
> 
> I'm curious, If the highjacked prefix is a /24 (subset of your much larger 
> /22) and you can only tie the highjacked prefix, at that point how effective 
> is the mitigation outside of a default bgp route selection process?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Vasileios Kotronis
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:23 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Real-time BGP hijacking detection: ARTEMIS-1.0.0 just released
> 
> Dear operators,
> 
> FORTH's INSPIRE group and CAIDA are delighted to announce the public release 
> of the ARTEMIS BGP prefix hijacking detection tool, available as open-source 
> software at https://github.com/FORTH-ICS-INSPIRE/artemis
> 
> ARTEMIS is designed to be operated by an AS in order to monitor BGP for 
> potential hijacking attempts against its own prefixes. The system detects 
> such attacks within seconds, enabling immediate mitigation. The current 
> release has been tested at a major greek ISP, a dual-homed edge academic 
> network, and a major US R backbone network.
> 
> We would be happy if you'd give it a try and provide feedback. Feel free to 
> make pull requests on GitHub and help us make this a true community project.
> 
> ARTEMIS is funded by European Research Council (ERC) grant agreement no.
> 338402 (NetVolution Project), the RIPE NCC Community Projects 2017, the 
> Comcast Innovation Fund, US NSF grants OAC-1848641 and CNS-1423659 and US DHS 
> S contract HHSP233201600012C.
> 
> Best regards,
> Vasileios
> 
> --
> ===
> Vasileios Kotronis
> Postdoctoral Researcher, member of the INSPIRE Group INSPIRE = INternet 
> Security, Privacy, and Intelligence REsearch Telecommunications and Networks 
> Lab (TNL) Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) Leoforos 
> Plastira 100, Heraklion 70013, Greece e-mail : vkotro...@ics.forth.gr
> url: http://inspire.edu.gr
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: Real-time BGP hijacking detection: ARTEMIS-1.0.0 just released

[Kody Vicknair]

I'm curious, If the highjacked prefix is a /24 (subset of your much larger /22) 
and you can only tie the highjacked prefix, at that point how effective is the 
mitigation outside of a default bgp route selection process?






-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Vasileios Kotronis
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:23 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Real-time BGP hijacking detection: ARTEMIS-1.0.0 just released

Dear operators,

FORTH's INSPIRE group and CAIDA are delighted to announce the public release of 
the ARTEMIS BGP prefix hijacking detection tool, available as open-source 
software at https://github.com/FORTH-ICS-INSPIRE/artemis

ARTEMIS is designed to be operated by an AS in order to monitor BGP for 
potential hijacking attempts against its own prefixes. The system detects such 
attacks within seconds, enabling immediate mitigation. The current release has 
been tested at a major greek ISP, a dual-homed edge academic network, and a 
major US R backbone network.

We would be happy if you'd give it a try and provide feedback. Feel free to 
make pull requests on GitHub and help us make this a true community project.

ARTEMIS is funded by European Research Council (ERC) grant agreement no.
338402 (NetVolution Project), the RIPE NCC Community Projects 2017, the Comcast 
Innovation Fund, US NSF grants OAC-1848641 and CNS-1423659 and US DHS S 
contract HHSP233201600012C.

Best regards,
Vasileios

--
===
Vasileios Kotronis
Postdoctoral Researcher, member of the INSPIRE Group INSPIRE = INternet 
Security, Privacy, and Intelligence REsearch Telecommunications and Networks 
Lab (TNL) Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) Leoforos 
Plastira 100, Heraklion 70013, Greece e-mail : vkotro...@ics.forth.gr
url: http://inspire.edu.gr
===

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Darin Steffl]

http://micemn.net/services.html

MICE in Minneapolis is a great IX that we are on and their port fees are
very reasonable. They used to be completely free up until this year. Even
so, their fees are virtually nothing which encourages more operators to
connect to it versus For-Profit IX's where sometimes the fees are almost as
much as transit.

For example Midwest-IX is $9,300 per year for a 10G port but MICE is only
$250 per year. That's a HUGE difference and MICE also has way more peers
and traffic overall due to how easy and cheap it is to join.

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:27 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Not all transit is cheap and not all transit is good quality, regardless
> of what it costs. ;-)
>
> At our IX, we regularly see clients whose total network usage goes up once
> they're on the IX.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mehmet Akcin" 
> *To: *"Clayton Zekelman" 
> *Cc: *"Mike Hammett" , "NANOG Mailing List" <
> nanog@nanog.org>, "Tim Raphael" 
> *Sent: *Friday, December 21, 2018 8:19:43 AM
> *Subject: *Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
>
> Torix and Six are great examples.
>
> If you want to be for profit, make sure to publish port pricing and keep
> it fair. Transit is cheap and good quality
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 08:14 Clayton Zekelman  wrote:
>
>>
>> TorIX is a great example of a not for profit IX that is very successful.
>>
>> https://www.torix.ca/
>>
>> A very dedicated team of people provide an incredible level of service.
>>
>> Thave a very transparent process.  Their pricing is listed up front on
>> their website:
>>
>> https://www.torix.ca/peering/#pricing
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:03 AM 21/12/2018, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> As far as neutral, I meant separate from the datacenters in which they're
>> housed. People in NA seem to think there are only two kinds of IXes,
>> Equinix, DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>
>> The Brothers WISP 
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Tim Raphael" 
>> *To: *"NANOG Mailing List" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
>>
>> The other point to consider is that a NFP can justify more locations and
>> offer services (such as extended reach) that don’t have the same profit
>> margins or ROI as for-profits.
>> This often leads to greater value to those with smaller networks and
>> fewer customers allowing them to grow and expand without increased
>> aggregation or transit costs. This in-turn leads to a richer array of
>> providers and chips away at the monopolies in niche markets.
>>
>> The NFP IXP I work for focuses on providing value to the broader
>> community and the Internet as a whole - especially somewhere like Australia
>> which has unique constraints.
>>
>> Additionally, “Neutral†and For-Profit doesn’t always compute in my
>> mind, there will always be commercial alliances that lead to not-total
>> neutrality.
>> When a NFP is owned by it’s members there has to be 100% transparency
>> in organisational decisions around member funds and resources which ensures
>> accountability reliability.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Tim
>>
>>
>> > On 21 Dec 2018, at 3:58 am, Brielle Bruns  wrote:
>> >
>> > On 12/20/2018 12:51 PM, Aaron wrote:
>> >> Probably price.  Also perception of value.  If you're a for profit
>> enterprise then they're paying for interconnection plus your bump.  If
>> you're non-profit the perception is that there is a larger value because
>> there's no bump.  Whether that's true or not, who knows but that's the
>> perception I've heard.
>> >
>> > Depending on the size of the non-profit, I'd almost compare it to how
>> the hospitals are here in Boise.
>> >
>> > The non-profits are oversized, monopolistic, price gouging, etc.  Their
>> care can be pretty meh, esp since they bought up all the little independent
>> clinics (yay, ER pricing for a basic family clinic visit).
>> >
>> > The for-profit smaller clinics and hospitals run a pretty tight ship,
>> better value for their money, service is very good, and compete with one
>> another for who has the best service.
>> >
>> > People think they are getting 'better' because they 

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Mike Hammett]

Not all transit is cheap and not all transit is good quality, regardless of 
what it costs. ;-) 

At our IX, we regularly see clients whose total network usage goes up once 
they're on the IX. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mehmet Akcin"  
To: "Clayton Zekelman"  
Cc: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG Mailing List" , 
"Tim Raphael"  
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:19:43 AM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 



Torix and Six are great examples. 


If you want to be for profit, make sure to publish port pricing and keep it 
fair. Transit is cheap and good quality 



On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 08:14 Clayton Zekelman < clay...@mnsi.net > wrote: 




TorIX is a great example of a not for profit IX that is very successful. 

https://www.torix.ca/ 

A very dedicated team of people provide an incredible level of service. 

Thave a very transparent process. Their pricing is listed up front on their 
website: 

https://www.torix.ca/peering/#pricing 



At 09:03 AM 21/12/2018, Mike Hammett wrote: 


As far as neutral, I meant separate from the datacenters in which they're 
housed. People in NA seem to think there are only two kinds of IXes, Equinix, 
DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 


From: "Tim Raphael" < raphael.timo...@gmail.com > 
To: "NANOG Mailing List" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 

The other point to consider is that a NFP can justify more locations and offer 
services (such as extended reach) that don’t have the same profit margins or 
ROI as for-profits. 
This often leads to greater value to those with smaller networks and fewer 
customers allowing them to grow and expand without increased aggregation or 
transit costs. This in-turn leads to a richer array of providers and chips away 
at the monopolies in niche markets. 

The NFP IXP I work for focuses on providing value to the broader community and 
the Internet as a whole - especially somewhere like Australia which has unique 
constraints. 

Additionally, “Neutral†and For-Profit doesn’t always compute in my mind, 
there will always be commercial alliances that lead to not-total neutrality. 
When a NFP is owned by it’s members there has to be 100% transparency in 
organisational decisions around member funds and resources which ensures 
accountability reliability. 






- Tim 


> On 21 Dec 2018, at 3:58 am, Brielle Bruns < br...@2mbit.com > wrote: 
> 
> On 12/20/2018 12:51 PM, Aaron wrote: 
>> Probably price. Also perception of value. If you're a for profit enterprise 
>> then they're paying for interconnection plus your bump. If you're non-profit 
>> the perception is that there is a larger value because there's no bump. 
>> Whether that's true or not, who knows but that's the perception I've heard. 
> 
> Depending on the size of the non-profit, I'd almost compare it to how the 
> hospitals are here in Boise. 
> 
> The non-profits are oversized, monopolistic, price gouging, etc. Their care 
> can be pretty meh, esp since they bought up all the little independent 
> clinics (yay, ER pricing for a basic family clinic visit). 
> 
> The for-profit smaller clinics and hospitals run a pretty tight ship, better 
> value for their money, service is very good, and compete with one another for 
> who has the best service. 
> 
> People think they are getting 'better' because they are going to a place that 
> is supposed to be run to benefit people over profit, but alas, you'd be very 
> very wrong. 
> -- 
> Brielle Bruns 
> The Summit Open Source Development Group 
> http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org 
> 





-- 

Clayton Zekelman 
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E 
Windsor, Ontario 
N8W 1H4 

tel. 519-985-8410 
fax. 519-985-8409 

-- 

Mehmet 
+1-424-298-1903 

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Jason Lixfeld]

New rates for 2019 just posted yesterday!  Get yer ports while they’re hot!

> On Dec 21, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Clayton Zekelman  wrote:
> 
> 
> TorIX is a great example of a not for profit IX that is very successful.
> 
> https://www.torix.ca/  
> 
> A very dedicated team of people provide an incredible level of service.
> 
> Thave a very transparent process.  Their pricing is listed up front on their 
> website:
> 
> https://www.torix.ca/peering/#pricing 
> 
> 
> 
> At 09:03 AM 21/12/2018, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> As far as neutral, I meant separate from the datacenters in which they're 
>> housed. People in NA seem to think there are only two kinds of IXes, 
>> Equinix, DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>> From: "Tim Raphael" 
>> To: "NANOG Mailing List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
>> 
>> The other point to consider is that a NFP can justify more locations and 
>> offer services (such as extended reach) that don’t have the same profit 
>> margins or ROI as for-profits.
>> This often leads to greater value to those with smaller networks and fewer 
>> customers allowing them to grow and expand without increased aggregation or 
>> transit costs. This in-turn leads to a richer array of providers and chips 
>> away at the monopolies in niche markets.
>> 
>> The NFP IXP I work for focuses on providing value to the broader community 
>> and the Internet as a whole - especially somewhere like Australia which has 
>> unique constraints.
>> 
>> Additionally, “Neutral” and For-Profit doesn’t always compute in my 
>> mind, there will always be commercial alliances that lead to not-total 
>> neutrality.
>> When a NFP is owned by it’s members there has to be 100% transparency in 
>> organisational decisions around member funds and resources which ensures 
>> accountability reliability.
>> 
>> - Tim
>> 
>> 
>> > On 21 Dec 2018, at 3:58 am, Brielle Bruns  wrote:
>> > 
>> > On 12/20/2018 12:51 PM, Aaron wrote:
>> >> Probably price.  Also perception of value.  If you're a for profit 
>> >> enterprise then they're paying for interconnection plus your bump.  If 
>> >> you're non-profit the perception is that there is a larger value because 
>> >> there's no bump.  Whether that's true or not, who knows but that's the 
>> >> perception I've heard.
>> > 
>> > Depending on the size of the non-profit, I'd almost compare it to how the 
>> > hospitals are here in Boise.
>> > 
>> > The non-profits are oversized, monopolistic, price gouging, etc.  Their 
>> > care can be pretty meh, esp since they bought up all the little 
>> > independent clinics (yay, ER pricing for a basic family clinic visit).
>> > 
>> > The for-profit smaller clinics and hospitals run a pretty tight ship, 
>> > better value for their money, service is very good, and compete with one 
>> > another for who has the best service.
>> > 
>> > People think they are getting 'better' because they are going to a place 
>> > that is supposed to be run to benefit people over profit, but alas, you'd 
>> > be very very wrong.
>> > -- 
>> > Brielle Bruns
>> > The Summit Open Source Development Group
>> > http://www.sosdg.org  / http://www.ahbl.org 
>> >  
>> > 
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> 
> Clayton Zekelman
> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
> Windsor, Ontario
> N8W 1H4
> 
> tel. 519-985-8410
> fax. 519-985-8409
> 

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Mehmet Akcin]

Torix and Six are great examples.

If you want to be for profit, make sure to publish port pricing and keep it
fair. Transit is cheap and good quality

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 08:14 Clayton Zekelman  wrote:

>
> TorIX is a great example of a not for profit IX that is very successful.
>
> https://www.torix.ca/
>
> A very dedicated team of people provide an incredible level of service.
>
> Thave a very transparent process.  Their pricing is listed up front on
> their website:
>
> https://www.torix.ca/peering/#pricing
>
>
>
> At 09:03 AM 21/12/2018, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> As far as neutral, I meant separate from the datacenters in which they're
> housed. People in NA seem to think there are only two kinds of IXes,
> Equinix, DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
> The Brothers WISP 
>
> --
> *From: *"Tim Raphael" 
> *To: *"NANOG Mailing List" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX
>
> The other point to consider is that a NFP can justify more locations and
> offer services (such as extended reach) that don’t have the same profit
> margins or ROI as for-profits.
> This often leads to greater value to those with smaller networks and fewer
> customers allowing them to grow and expand without increased aggregation or
> transit costs. This in-turn leads to a richer array of providers and chips
> away at the monopolies in niche markets.
>
> The NFP IXP I work for focuses on providing value to the broader community
> and the Internet as a whole - especially somewhere like Australia which has
> unique constraints.
>
> Additionally, “Neutral†and For-Profit doesn’t always compute in my
> mind, there will always be commercial alliances that lead to not-total
> neutrality.
> When a NFP is owned by it’s members there has to be 100% transparency in
> organisational decisions around member funds and resources which ensures
> accountability reliability.
>
>
>
> - Tim
>
>
> > On 21 Dec 2018, at 3:58 am, Brielle Bruns  wrote:
> >
> > On 12/20/2018 12:51 PM, Aaron wrote:
> >> Probably price.  Also perception of value.  If you're a for profit
> enterprise then they're paying for interconnection plus your bump.  If
> you're non-profit the perception is that there is a larger value because
> there's no bump.  Whether that's true or not, who knows but that's the
> perception I've heard.
> >
> > Depending on the size of the non-profit, I'd almost compare it to how
> the hospitals are here in Boise.
> >
> > The non-profits are oversized, monopolistic, price gouging, etc.  Their
> care can be pretty meh, esp since they bought up all the little independent
> clinics (yay, ER pricing for a basic family clinic visit).
> >
> > The for-profit smaller clinics and hospitals run a pretty tight ship,
> better value for their money, service is very good, and compete with one
> another for who has the best service.
> >
> > People think they are getting 'better' because they are going to a place
> that is supposed to be run to benefit people over profit, but alas, you'd
> be very very wrong.
> > --
> > Brielle Bruns
> > The Summit Open Source Development Group
> > http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Clayton Zekelman
> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
> 
> Windsor, Ontario
> 
> N8W 1H4
> 
>
> tel. 519-985-8410
> fax. 519-985-8409
>
-- 
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Clayton Zekelman]

TorIX is a great example of a not for profit IX that is very successful.

https://www.torix.ca/

A very dedicated team of people provide an incredible level of service.

Thave a very transparent process.  Their pricing 
is listed up front on their website:


https://www.torix.ca/peering/#pricing



At 09:03 AM 21/12/2018, Mike Hammett wrote:
As far as neutral, I meant separate from the 
datacenters in which they're housed. People in 
NA seem to think there are only two kinds of 
IXes, Equinix, DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP


--
From: "Tim Raphael" 
To: "NANOG Mailing List" 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

The other point to consider is that a NFP can 
justify more locations and offer services (such 
as extended reach) that don’t have the same 
profit margins or ROI as for-profits.
This often leads to greater value to those with 
smaller networks and fewer customers allowing 
them to grow and expand without increased 
aggregation or transit costs. This in-turn leads 
to a richer array of providers and chips away at 
the monopolies in niche markets.


The NFP IXP I work for focuses on providing 
value to the broader community and the Internet 
as a whole - especially somewhere like Australia which has unique constraints.


Additionally, “Neutral” and For-Profit 
doesn’t always compute in my mind, there will 
always be commercial alliances that lead to not-total neutrality.
When a NFP is owned by it’s members there has 
to be 100% transparency in organisational 
decisions around member funds and resources 
which ensures accountability reliability.


- Tim


> On 21 Dec 2018, at 3:58 am, Brielle Bruns  wrote:
>
> On 12/20/2018 12:51 PM, Aaron wrote:
>> Probably price.  Also perception of 
value.  If you're a for profit enterprise then 
they're paying for interconnection plus your 
bump.  If you're non-profit the perception is 
that there is a larger value because there's no 
bump.  Whether that's true or not, who knows 
but that's the perception I've heard.

>
> Depending on the size of the non-profit, I'd 
almost compare it to how the hospitals are here in Boise.

>
> The non-profits are oversized, monopolistic, 
price gouging, etc.  Their care can be pretty 
meh, esp since they bought up all the little 
independent clinics (yay, ER pricing for a basic family clinic visit).

>
> The for-profit smaller clinics and hospitals 
run a pretty tight ship, better value for their 
money, service is very good, and compete with 
one another for who has the best service.

>
> People think they are getting 'better' 
because they are going to a place that is 
supposed to be run to benefit people over 
profit, but alas, you'd be very very wrong.

> --
> Brielle Bruns
> The Summit Open Source Development Group
> http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
>




--

Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

[Mike Hammett]

As far as neutral, I meant separate from the datacenters in which they're 
housed. People in NA seem to think there are only two kinds of IXes, Equinix, 
DRT, Coresite types and NWAX, SIX, MICE types. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Tim Raphael"  
To: "NANOG Mailing List"  
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:39:42 PM 
Subject: Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX 

The other point to consider is that a NFP can justify more locations and offer 
services (such as extended reach) that don’t have the same profit margins or 
ROI as for-profits. 
This often leads to greater value to those with smaller networks and fewer 
customers allowing them to grow and expand without increased aggregation or 
transit costs. This in-turn leads to a richer array of providers and chips away 
at the monopolies in niche markets. 

The NFP IXP I work for focuses on providing value to the broader community and 
the Internet as a whole - especially somewhere like Australia which has unique 
constraints. 

Additionally, “Neutral” and For-Profit doesn’t always compute in my mind, there 
will always be commercial alliances that lead to not-total neutrality. 
When a NFP is owned by it’s members there has to be 100% transparency in 
organisational decisions around member funds and resources which ensures 
accountability reliability. 

- Tim 


> On 21 Dec 2018, at 3:58 am, Brielle Bruns  wrote: 
> 
> On 12/20/2018 12:51 PM, Aaron wrote: 
>> Probably price. Also perception of value. If you're a for profit enterprise 
>> then they're paying for interconnection plus your bump. If you're non-profit 
>> the perception is that there is a larger value because there's no bump. 
>> Whether that's true or not, who knows but that's the perception I've heard. 
> 
> Depending on the size of the non-profit, I'd almost compare it to how the 
> hospitals are here in Boise. 
> 
> The non-profits are oversized, monopolistic, price gouging, etc. Their care 
> can be pretty meh, esp since they bought up all the little independent 
> clinics (yay, ER pricing for a basic family clinic visit). 
> 
> The for-profit smaller clinics and hospitals run a pretty tight ship, better 
> value for their money, service is very good, and compete with one another for 
> who has the best service. 
> 
> People think they are getting 'better' because they are going to a place that 
> is supposed to be run to benefit people over profit, but alas, you'd be very 
> very wrong. 
> -- 
> Brielle Bruns 
> The Summit Open Source Development Group 
> http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org 
> 

Re: Pinging a Device Every Second

[Christian Meutes]

Depending on your requirements and scale - but I read you want history -
it's probably less a demand on CPU or network resources, but more on IOPS.

If you cache all results before writing to disk, then it's not much of a
problem, but by just going "let's use RRD/MRTG for this" your IOPS could
become the first problem. So you might look into a proper timeseries
backend or use a caching daemon for RRD.


On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 4:48 PM Colton Conor  wrote:

> How much compute and network resources does it take for a NMS to:
>
> 1. ICMP ping a device every second
> 2. Record these results.
> 3. Report an alarm after so many seconds of missed pings.
>
> We are looking for a system to in near real-time monitor if an end
> customers router is up or down. SNMP I assume would be too resource
> intensive, so ICMP pings seem like the only logical solution.
>
> The question is once a second pings too polling on an NMS and a consumer
> grade router? Does it take much network bandwidth and CPU resources from
> both the NMS and CPE side?
>
> Lets say this is for a 1,000 customer ISP.
>
>
>

-- 
Christian Meutes

e-mail/xmpp: christ...@errxtx.net
mobile: +49 176 32370305
PGP Fingerprint: B458 E4D6 7173 A8C4 9C75315B 709C 295B FA53 2318
Toulouser Allee 21, 40211 Duesseldorf, Germany