Re: SingTel (AS7473) is only announcing ConnectPlus (AS9911) routes to Level3 (AS3356) in SJC?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:38:55 +0200
From: Martin Barry ma...@supine.com
Subject: SingTel (AS7473) is only announcing ConnectPlus (AS9911)
routes to Level3 (AS3356) in SJC?
To: na...@nanog.org
Anyone on the list who can offer an explanation about the following
scenario? We have taken this up with providers at either end but it
will take awhile to filter up to the ASes in question.
We were seeing a London to Singapore connection go via San Jose
causing a 50%+ increase in latency.
It appears that SingTel (AS7473) is only announcing ConnectPlus
(AS9911) routes to Level3 (AS3356) in SJC.
However they have many adjacencies in many countries and other routes
of both AS7473 and it's other downstreams don't appear to be affected
(although I haven't tested them all).
Traceroutes are appended at the end but to see for yourself use
202.176.222.0 as a BGP or traceroute query in the Level3 looking glass
for both London and any other location, then compare with 167.172.93.0
Checking another large AS at random, they see AS7473 announcing AS9911
routes in London.
thanks
Marty
At first I wanted to say this looks like a policy move on 7473's part
but on further investigation I'm not sure if they're punishing
themselves or doing some very specific traffic routing possible for
balancing purposes. Noticing in Leve'3 bgp output they're a customer
Show Level 3 (London, England) BGP routes for 202.176.222.212
BGP routing table entry for 202.176.222.0/24
Paths: (2 available, best #1)
7473 9911
AS-path translation: { APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK APNIC-AS-3-BLOCK }
car2.SanJose1 (metric 44128)
Origin IGP, metric 100, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer
United_States San_Jose 7473:1 7473:2 7473:41101
Prepend_2_to_AS1668 Prepend_2_to_AS13680
Originator: car2.SanJose1
7473 9911
AS-path translation: { APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK APNIC-AS-3-BLOCK }
car2.SanJose1 (metric 44128)
Origin IGP, metric 100, localpref 100, valid, internal
Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer
United_States San_Jose 7473:1 7473:2 7473:41101
Prepend_2_to_AS1668 Prepend_2_to_AS13680
Originator: car2.SanJose1
I was inclined to believe it was related to cost, especially seeing
the prepend for AOL (1668), but began to dimiss that as I saw two
known _peers_ haul the traffic to the west coast as well:
Router: gin-l78-mcore3
Site: GB, London - L78, VSNL LONTX01 STRATFORD
Command: show ip bgp 202.176.222.212
BGP routing table entry for 202.176.222.0/24
Bestpath Modifiers: deterministic-med
Paths: (3 available, best #2)
13 16
7473 9911
laa-icore1. (metric 3100) from laa-mcore3. (laa-mcore3.)
Origin IGP, valid, internal
Community: Peer route North America West Coast Los Angeles (LAA, LMR)
Originator: laa-icore1.
7473 9911
pdi-icore1. (metric 3095) from pdi-mcore4. (pdi-mcore4.)
Origin IGP, valid, internal, best
Community: Peer route North America West Coast Palo Alto (PDI)
Originator: pdi-icore1.
and-
1 74 ms 75 ms 75 ms 10gigabitethernet2-3.core1.nyc4.he.net
(72.52.92.77)
2 130 ms 149 ms 147 ms 10gigabitethernet5-3.core1.lax1.he.net
(72.52.92.226)
3 131 ms 130 ms 139 ms laxeq-ds2-peer1.singtel.com (206.223.123.120)
4 131 ms 130 ms 139 ms ge-1-0-0-0.laxow-cr2.ix.singtel.com
(203.208.149.118)
In terms of figuring it out for sure I dont think L3 will tell you
anything as they probably don't know. SingTel's your best bet but
good luck with that unless you become a customer. I'm going to vote
backbone traffic balancing by SingTel.
Re: Contract negotiations advice?
I am dealing with a large telecom which purchased the small telecom I signed a contract with. Despite signing only 1 contract with them, the two racks, and the bandwidth which feeds 1 rack (I connect privately to the second rack at no charge) all have different termination dates. Check your billing. Did your first invoice have all of your services? How about the second one? If they didn't bill you on time, it's partially your fault. If they did bill you for everything, then you have empirical evidence showing when you started the term (by performance.. paying) and their dates are wrong. How signing one contract resulted in 3 different end of term dates, months apart, I can't quite figure out. Did your original vendor provide a turn-up or activation notice? This should indicate the date that would go in their system to indicate term expiration. Can anyone point me to a mailing list or discussion forum containing advice on dealing with such issues? And the wider issue of negotiating good rates with telecoms? Typical economics, more volume leads to better deals; growth appeal; competitive reference, etc.
Re: no you can't configure your router w/ this
sigh... where was this useful data 10 years ago! http://www.fcc.gov/worldtravel/ Even more entertaining is the reboot.fcc.gov (Beta) in the top right corner. I wonder if they have a reboot.ftc.gov link as well; that might actually be more useful.
E1200i vs EX8200 in Large Deployment
Hi All, If anyone out there has any pro/con experience with the Force10 E1200i or S50 in a large environment I'd really appreciate your thoughts. I'm comparing them against the Juniper EX8200 and EX4200 respectively and curious about hardware/software stability on both brands. Off-list responses are invited to avoid publicly promoting/demoting a specific brand or device ;) Many thanks in advance, Adam LaFountain
Re: MGE UPS Systems
I'm curious if anyone might know what the future of the MGE line of UPS systems are. My concern is that they're dead-end since being merged into APC, and APC wanting to sell me APC stuff. The problem I face is that my facility was designed with separate equipment spaces, which is great for normal electrical gear that can be backed against a wall, but not so great for a product which is designed for the everything goes in with your racks mindset. Any insight would be appreciated. I heard the MGE product set was designed to replace the typical/old UPS product sets, like the Silcon Series, and that APC branded units would be concentrated on the Symmetra product line. Keep in mind the Symmetras above around 30kva are self contained units that are really racked in the same rack as other equipment.
Re: Level 3 (was: legacy Wiltel/Looking Glass bandwidth)
Without continuing the L3 pile-on, one can easily glean from their public filings that they have never properly filled out their management depth in acquisition absorption and/or sufficiently empowered those folks. The billions in revenue lost from acquisitions like Genuity and others have told this story more than once. L3 is not alone in this. Worldcomm's failure to integrate acquisitions led to a much larger operational cash need than VZ has shown for the same assets (verio, lots of other names here). This is because VZ understands how traditional businesses acquire others, better, in my opinion. Unfortunately, L3 has shown little interest in making the real world, tough business cuts in heads and absorbing the real (internal) pain of acquisitions and seems to have a pretty laissez-faire attitude towards its customers, even at its senior management levels (Cxx). I think this will be (and has been) the biggest problem for them. Even a possible merger/JV with Sprint may not be sufficient to solve that. Their resolution of billing disputes is much more typical of WCOM than VZ. They are a big fish in lots, and lots, of markets. They enjoy being able to dictate pricing in them. IMO, however, they don't have the maturity of (say, ATT or others) to take that big fish status and leave you still happy with the service. (colloquially: if [good companies] are going to take advantage, at least they don't make it more painful than necessary). Operationally, where you have options (because of pricing, locality, etc) it's long-term good to support competitors, diversity in connectivity, etc. History has shown time and time again that when an industry consolidates a lot of business with a certain vendor, bad things can and do occur. Deepak Jain AiNET Not to mention they have also been the subject of several class action suits for this very reason regarding the integration of acquired assets, or lack thereof: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Shuman-Law-Firm-Announces-pz-14325037.html?x=1 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Pomerantz-Firm-Charges-pz-14430251.html?x=1 http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/090330/0486160.html Adam LaFountain
Re: NPE-G2 vs. Sup720-3BXL
We need true full routes and more CPU horsepower for crunching BGP (+12 smaller peers + ISIS). OC3 interfaces are going to be mandatory, one each at two locations. Oh yeah, we're still a larger startup without endless pockets. Power, rack space, and SmartNet are not concerns at any location (on-site cold spares). We may need an upstream OC12 in the future but that's a ways out and not a concern here. Our engineering team has settled on three $20k/node options: - Sup720-3BXLs with PS and fan upgrades - Sup2s as switches + ISIS + statics and no BGP, push BGP edge routing off to NPE-G2s across a 2-3Gbps port-channel - Sup2s as switches + ISIS + statics and no BGP, push BGP edge routing off to a 12008 with E3 engines across a 2-3Gbps port-channel. Ideas and constructive opinions welcome, especially software and stability-related. For about $6k all in, you could pickup a monster dual Xeon server with a few 10GE PCI line cards and run a subscription service of the Vyatta open source router. With high end machine specs, we've been able to run 5 full tables and a solid amount of peers with about 6.5Gbps sustained to the net without any stress. For access, we just trunk one of the PCI cards down to a 6506 or a 3750 and it runs nice and clean. The only downside to this setup is the lack of cisco proprietary software features which it sounds like you might need. If anything you might be able to keep your existing setup and uplink everything to one of these routers as an edge device. Adam ___ Adam LaFountain
