Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:24, Paul Vixie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes: People pay the RIRs. The RIRs spend money on parties for network operators. ... according to for 2007 and

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes: > People pay the RIRs. > > The RIRs spend money on parties for network operators. > ... according to for 2007 and for 2006 a

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Andy Davidson wrote: I think that charging for deaggregation of PA is hard to imagine. I think charging for PI as a model may have been worthy of consideration several years ago, but since we're only months away from entire product lines of deployed edge kit nolonger acc

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On 22 Jan 2008, at 17:30, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: Hmm, who gets paid? It sounds like your hinting around a telco-type reciprocal payment model (correct me if I'm wrong). Do I pay my upstreams who in turn pay there upstreams and so on and so on? Or, is there some central, uber-

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 22, 2008 1:58 PM, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Giving absolutely anyone who wants it PI space would make things much > worse...so I wouldn't call that artificial supression. It's more like > keeping the model sustainable. Jon, Its kinda like gas in the 70's. There wasn't enough

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, William Herrin wrote: Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space. If by artificially suppress, you mean anyone who wants it can't just fill out a form and be handed a portable /2

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Hello Bill: > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > William Herrin > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:55 AM > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and > terminology] > &g

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

William Herrin wrote: > Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the > growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space. > This is a Really Bad Thing on so many levels, but absent a viable > market-based solution to the problem, authority-based rationing i

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

> The problem with William's calculation is that he is claiming the > _only_ difference between X & Y is "prefix count". (He said this, > more than once.) The only meaningful difference between X & Y for the purposes of this discussion _is_ prefix count. > He is dead wrong. No, he's quite

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space. If we can determine the cost to announce a prefix then we could develop a market-based solution to the problem... instead of suppressing the prefix count, we GET

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 21, 2008 10:28 PM, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there really any point in trying to put a $ figure on each route? Jon, Emphatically Yes! Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space. T

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:14 PM, David Barak wrote: Wouldn't a reasonable approach be to take the sum of a 6500/ msfc2 and a 2851, and assume that the routing computation could be offloaded? The difficulty I have with this discussion is that the cost per prefix is zero until you need to chang

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, William Herrin wrote: Hmm. Well, the secondary market is flooded with sup2's right now, with the card at sub-$1k prices and with a 6500+sup2 in the $5k range. There isn't really a comparable availability of the sup720-3bxl although eBay does have a few listed in the $12k ra

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 21, 2008 5:26 PM, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If using the 7600/3bxl as the cost basis of "the upgrade", you might as > well compare it to the 6500/7600/sup2 or sup3b. Either of these would > likely be what people buying the 3bxls are upgrading from, in some cases > just because

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Wouldn't a reasonable approach be to take the sum of a 6500/msfc2 and a 2851, and assume that the routing computation could be offloaded? The difficulty I have with this discussion is that the cost per prefix is zero until you need to change eigenstate, where there's a big cost, and then it go

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Joe Greco wrote: > > Given that the 3750 is not acceptable, then what exactly would you propose > > for a 48 port multigigabit router, capable of wirespeed, that does /not/ > > hold a 300K+ prefix table? All we need is a model number and a price, and > > then we can substit

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Joe Greco wrote: Given that the 3750 is not acceptable, then what exactly would you propose for a 48 port multigigabit router, capable of wirespeed, that does /not/ hold a 300K+ prefix table? All we need is a model number and a price, and then we can substitute it into the

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

> > For example, the Cisco 3750G has all of features except for the > > ability to hold 300k+ prefixes. Per CDW, the 48-port version costs > > $10k, so the difference (ergo cost attributable to prefix count) is > > $40k-$10k=$30k, or 75%. > > Unfortunately, I have to run real packets through a r

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and can take a gig of RAM. If your goal is to have fine-grained routing data, and not to carry gigs of traffic, that parti

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Sun, Jan 20, 2008, Jeff McAdams wrote: > A Linux box (*BSD, pick your poison) running Quagga or similar will do > the job at an extremely low price point. > > Yeah, again, not gonna want to pass gigs of traff

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:46 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > > So at this point, the part of my analysis you still dispute is where I > > claimed that 75% of the $40k cost of an entry-level DFZ router was > > attributable to its

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:46 PM, William Herrin wrote: So at this point, the part of my analysis you still dispute is where I claimed that 75% of the $40k cost of an entry-level DFZ router was attributable to its ability to carry the needed prefix count. I didn't ask you to justify what you though

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008, Jeff McAdams wrote: > A Linux box (*BSD, pick your poison) running Quagga or similar will do > the job at an extremely low price point. > > Yeah, again, not gonna want to pass gigs of traffic through it, but the > same concept does still apply. I dunno, the *NIXes seem sud

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 08:20:36PM -0500, Jeff McAdams wrote: > Joe Abley wrote: > > On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote: > > >> Perhaps your definition of "entry level DFZ router" differs from mine. > >> I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline > >> for an

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008 5:10 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we take out the "proper attribution for the cost delta" out of the > equation and the equipment is still not considered equal, I submit > your idea of "proper attribution" is, well, not proper. Patrick, So at this point,

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Joe Abley wrote: > On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote: >> Perhaps your definition of "entry level DFZ router" differs from mine. >> I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline >> for an entry level DFZ router. > A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote: Perhaps your definition of "entry level DFZ router" differs from mine. I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline for an entry level DFZ router. A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and can take a gig of RAM.

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:34 PM, William Herrin wrote: The difference is much, much, much greater than that. Can the switch do ACLs? Policy routing? SFlow with the same sampling rate? Same number of BGP session? Is there some alternate piece of cheap hardware that supports the DFZ prefix coun

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

, Neil (missed the end of the last email!) -Original Message- From: William Herrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 20 January 2008 17:22 To: Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 2

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008 1:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per > >> year > > > > No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost > > analysis i

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

January 2008 17:22 To: Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote: >

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

> But before we go too far down this road, everyone here should realize > that new PI space and PA deaggregation WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. > > Many corporations paying for Internet access will NOT be tied to a > single provider. Period. Trying to tell them "you are too small, you > should

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote: I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per year No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost analysis is easy to calculate: Your calculation is in error. Entry level DFZ router: $40,000 St

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >>> There was some related work on

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 21, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Ben Butler wrote: Or maybe... we will run out of corporates first! Which would have to be the best of outcomes, everyone multihomed how wants/needs plus a manageable route table without having run out of IPs or AS numbers. As Internet connectivity becomes mor

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: 20 January 2008 15:12 To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] Ben, I believe you are correct that PA deaggregation is a huge problem, but some of that could be corporate multi-homing. (I don&#

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

rit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough numbers suggested t

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough numbers suggested that the attributable economic cost

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough &

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough numbers > > suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4 prefix in > > the DFZ (whether PI, P

Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Jan 19, 2008 11:48 AM, Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's some debate in RIPE land right now that discusses, "what actually is the automatic, free, right to PI" ? Every other network in the world pays the cost when someone s

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Jan 19, 2008 11:48 AM, Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's some debate in RIPE land right now that discusses, "what > actually is the automatic, free, right to PI" ? Every other network > in the world pays the cost when someone single homes but wants their / > 24 prefix on ever

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

> multi-homed. AT&T says they'll give us a temporary ASN, and want us > to do eBGP for our netblock. They sent the technical information over > today, and they want two distinct routers to act as the bgp peers... Two different Quagga instances running on different loopback addresses on the sa

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On 17 Jan 2008, at 12:45, Jeff McAdams wrote: Tony Li wrote: On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote: Anyway, it's all getting (for us) pretty complicated. We're a fairly small firm and just want an Ethernet handoff with our IP block on it. Sprint didn't blink at the request, bu

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:12 PM, William Herrin wrote: For renumbering purposes, you could reasonably expect the firewall to perform the translations once when rebooted or reset, after which it would use the discovered IP addresses. You can do that now with most firewalls and ACLs on most rout

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Jan 18, 2008 10:18 PM, Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > host.somewhere.net in a firewall rule in a PIX/ASA/etc. as opposed > > It's not only a security issue, but a performance issue (both resolver > and server) and one of practicality, as well (multiple A records for a > single FQ

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:35:30 -0500 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:29:37 GMT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said: > > > > > You don't always want to rely on the DNS for things like firewalls > > > and ACLs. DNS responses can be spoofed, the servers may not be > > > available, etc.

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Jan 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Brandon Galbraith wrote: Agreed. I'd see a huge security hole in letting someone put host.somewhere.net in a firewall rule in a PIX/ASA/etc. as opposed to an IP, especially since it's rare to see DNSSEC in production. It's not only a security issue, but a perf

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On 1/17/08, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wow, as far as I can tell, you've pretty much condemned most firewall > software and devices then, because I'm really not aware of any serious > ones that will successfully implement rules such as "allow from > 123.45.67.0/24" via DNS. Besides

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:15:30 CST, Joe Greco said: > > make this a killer. That could include things such as firewall rules/ACL's, > > recursion DNS server addresses, VPN adapters, VoIP equipment with stacks too > > stupid to do DNS, etc. > > I'll admit that fixing up /etc/resolv.conf and whate

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:35:30 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:29:37 GMT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said: > > > You don't always want to rely on the DNS for things like firewalls > > and ACLs. DNS responses can be spoofed, the servers may not be > > available, etc. (For some r

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:29:37 GMT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said: > You don't always want to rely on the DNS for things like firewalls and > ACLs. DNS responses can be spoofed, the servers may not be available, > etc. (For some reason, I'm assuming that DNSsec isn't being used...) Been there, done t

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

All of the arguments of whether AT&T should do it or would do it aside, my guesses are that it is either (a) the people he is talking to really don't understand him, (b) do understand but don't know how to get it done, or (c) AT&T only does things like that for customers buying such-and-such level

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:45:24 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:15:30 CST, Joe Greco said: > > make this a killer. That could include things such as firewall > > rules/ACL's, recursion DNS server addresses, VPN adapters, VoIP > > equipment with stacks too stupid to do DNS, e

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:15:30 CST, Joe Greco said: > make this a killer. That could include things such as firewall rules/ACL's, > recursion DNS server addresses, VPN adapters, VoIP equipment with stacks too > stupid to do DNS, etc. I'll admit that fixing up /etc/resolv.conf and whatever the Windo

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

Leo is referring to RFC 2270. Providers can get an ASN to use for customers who want to be multihomed only to them. It's likely ATT has such an ASN that you could use. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2270.txt --Heather ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Heather Schiller Customer Security IP Address Ma

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Jan 16, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote: 2. What's the technical terminology for the request for AT&T to simply start advertising our netblock called? I'm wondering if they're not understanding our request. According to the cached copy of AT&T's bgp4policy.doc at: http://www.one

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

> P.S. if your network is all in one cage, it can't be that difficult > to just renumber it all into AT&T address space. Oh, come on, let's not be naive. It's perfectly possible to have a common situation where it would be exceedingly difficult to do this. Anything that gets wired in by IP addr

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

Tony Li wrote: > On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote: >> Anyway, it's all getting (for us) pretty complicated. We're a fairly >> small firm and just want an Ethernet handoff with our IP block on it. >> Sprint didn't blink at the request, but AT&T... We're getting a good >> rate from

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

All you can say is...* **Caveat emptor.** [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 2. What's the technical terminology for the request for AT&T >> to simply start advertising our netblock called? I'm >> wondering if they're not understanding our request. >> > > You hit the nail on the head with that

RE: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

> 2. What's the technical terminology for the request for AT&T > to simply start advertising our netblock called? I'm > wondering if they're not understanding our request. You hit the nail on the head with that question. It's called a purchase order request. You bought vanilla Internet acces

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote: Anyway, it's all getting (for us) pretty complicated. We're a fairly small firm and just want an Ethernet handoff with our IP block on it. Sprint didn't blink at the request, but AT&T... We're getting a good rate from AT&T for the IP services

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

Mike Donahue wrote: Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some difficulty communicating with the boffins at AT&T. Any input/advice/translation would be appreciated. We own our own class C netblock. Our previous provider, Sprint, had no problem "adding" it to their net

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

Some networks (of note, the larger ones) have registered a "customer ASN". The idea is that networks advertised from their backbone ASN should only be the ones they own, and all customers who have no ASN use the customer ASN to originate their block. In most cases the contract prohibits using th

RE: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

Sprint might not have the same policy. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darryl Dunkin Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:55 PM To: Mike Donahue; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: request for help w/ ATT and terminology If you want connectiv

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

Darryl Dunkin wrote: If you want connectivity from both AT&T and Sprint with your one block, you have plenty of justification from ARIN to get your AS assigned assuming both feeds come into one location. However, it looks like you are asking two providers to announce the same block at two diffe

RE: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

January 16, 2008 4:37 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: request for help w/ ATT and terminology Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some difficulty communicating with the boffins at AT&T. Any input/advice/translation would be appreciated. We own our own

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

D] On Behalf Of Mike Donahue Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 13:37 To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: request for help w/ ATT and terminology Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some difficulty communicating with the boffins at AT&T. Any input/advice/tran

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

On Jan 16, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote: Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some difficulty communicating with the boffins at AT&T. Any input/advice/translation would be appreciated. We own our own class C netblock. Our previous provider, Sprint, had no

RE: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

08 13:37 To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: request for help w/ ATT and terminology Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some difficulty communicating with the boffins at AT&T. Any input/advice/translation would be appreciated. We own our own class C netblock. Our p

request for help w/ ATT and terminology

Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some difficulty communicating with the boffins at AT&T. Any input/advice/translation would be appreciated. We own our own class C netblock. Our previous provider, Sprint, had no problem "adding" it to their network/advertising it (t