Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15:49PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote: A coop, best-effort switch fabric colo'd at a few sites would allow participants to peer off traffic at a price of the order of a single cross-connect (~$500/month per 10G port is possible, maybe less), private-VLANs all-around, or to only-mutually approved peers (e.g. via an automated web interface, prior art) to avoid many of the /old/ issues. No requirement for multi-lateral peering. You could peer, sell transit, buy transit, multicast, etc. This has been working for years at http://www.torix.net , and on a smaller scale at http://www.ottix.net -- Jim Mercer[EMAIL PROTECTED]+971 55 410-5633 I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I live here and I'm going to take a leak. - Lester Pearson in 1967, during a meeting between himself and President Lyndon Johnson, whose Secret Service detail had taken over Pearson's cottage retreat. At one point, a Johnson guard asked Pearson, Who are you and where are you going?
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
Deepak, If it were as easy as you make it sound, I can assure you people would be doing it. Also, does your Equinix MSA contain a non-compete clause, which could be interpreted to mean you can't run a competing IX (metro fabric, exchange, whatever) out of their facilities? I hear many do. Drive Slow, PAUL WALL On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Warning: This may actually be operational too. Given Cogent (and others) recent pursuit of sub $4/mb/s transit... and the relatively flat cost of a paid peering fabric (even at 10G) and the O(N) costs for cross-connects, the thought of revisiting the old peering coops presented itself again. Assuming 10G PNI model: Assuming even nominal cross-connect fees of $100-$300/month per fiber pair, plus router port costs for each private peer (assuming you aren't at 10% utilization on the port) at a commercial exchange, you are eating a pretty significant cost per megabit you are actually moving. (plug in your numbers here). Assumption: Above 1Gb/s utilization, this makes sense or you are counting on growth. Below 10% you would normally go to a paid peering fabric where you are paying cross connect + a flat port charge + router port for 1-N peers and hoping that enough utilization occurs that you get 10% utilization (to recover capex, opex, etc) and then whatever additional utilization you need to cover the flat port charge or you are counting on growth. A coop, best-effort switch fabric colo'd at a few sites would allow participants to peer off traffic at a price of the order of a single cross-connect (~$500/month per 10G port is possible, maybe less), private-VLANs all-around, or to only-mutually approved peers (e.g. via an automated web interface, prior art) to avoid many of the /old/ issues. No requirement for multi-lateral peering. You could peer, sell transit, buy transit, multicast, etc. The way I figure it, it removes approximately an order of magnitude from the operational cost of peering with more than a handful of your largest single talkers. Especially as 100G LAN Ethernet becomes production before 100G WAN connections become commonplace. Economic theory (assuming that worked on the Internet) suggests this would allow for the increase in number of peers by approximately an order of magnitude (maybe more). Does this actually improve the present-day rationale to peer, or are most operations' costs so far above (from long haul, etc) or so far below (since the cost of transit has dropped so much) that this is no longer a relevant part of the equation? Warning: This may actually be operational too. Deepak Jain AiNET
[NANOG-announce] Call for Nominations for NANOG Steering Committee 2008/9
Hello everyone, Elections for three of the six elected positions on the NANOG Steering Committee will be held in October 2008. The currently-serving Steering Committee members whose terms are expiring are Joe Provo, Randy Bush and Philip Smith. Randy and Philip have also served two consecutive terms so, as per the charter, they cannot be considered for re-election until October 2009. The NANOG Steering Committee works closely with Merit to promote, support and improve NANOG. The Steering Committee is responsible for the selection of the Program Committee and the Mailing List Committee, and is the community's instrument for ensuring that NANOG as an organisation remains open, relevant and useful. If you care about NANOG as a forum, and think you would like to take a turn at volunteering your time to help make it better, please consider either volunteering yourself or nominating someone else. For more information about the role of the Steering Committee, or to find out more about what's involved in being an Steering Committee member, please consult the NANOG charter or contact someone who is already serving and ask them directly. http://www.nanog.org/charter.html http://www.nanog.org/sc.current.html HOW TO NOMINATE SOMEONE You may nominate someone else, or yourself. There is no limit to the number of nominations that may be submitted by a single person. Individual nominees will be contacted directly to confirm that they are willing to accept the nomination, and so that they can supply a biography for the NANOG web page. To submit a nomination, send the nominee's full name and contact details to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The candidates will be given an opportunity to make brief comments and/or accept questions from the community at the NANOG44 Community Meeting, Sunday, October 12th, beginning at 5:30 PM, PDT. IMPORTANT DATES Tue 2008-08-12 Call for Nominations issued Tue 2008-09-09 Last day for SC Nominations to be received Sun 2008-10-12 Voting for the 2008/2008 NANOG SC opens at Noon PDT Tue 2008-10-14 Voting for the 2008/2009 NANOG SC closes at 1 pm PDT Results will be announced at the close of the meeting Philip Smith (on behalf of the NANOG Steering Committee) -- ___ NANOG-announce mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: impossible circuit
Are dups generated on traffic going over that DS3 from (rather than to) the Ocala side? Does the DS3 cross Sprint's network? Then we noticed the really weird stuff. Pings to anything in Ocala responded with multiple dupes and ttl exceeded messages from a Level3 IP. Traceroutes to certain IPs in Ocala would get as far our Ocala router, then inexplicably hop onto Sprintlink's network, come back to us over our Level3 transit connection, get to Ocala, then hop over to Sprintlink again, repeating that loop as many times as max TTL would permit. Pings from router to router crossing just the DS3 would work, but we'd see 10 duplicate packets for every 1 expected packet. BTW, the cisco CLI hides dupes unless you turn on ip icmp debugging. What would happen if you pinged the Ocala router such that the TTL was 1 when travelling over the DS3? From your traceroute it seems it travelled two IP hops that did not send ICMP error messages, but it might just be that the ICMP errors from the Ocala router are arriving first. traffic was actually jumping off our network and coming back in via Level3, I could see/block at least some of that using an ACL on our interface to Level3. How do you explain it, when you ping the remote end of a DS3 interface with a single echo request packet and see 5 copies of that echo request arrive at one of your transit provider interfaces? Just clarifying: 5 duplicates were being generated for every packet that crossed the DS3, not just 1 packet that looped causing 5 duplicates? Here's a typical traceroute with the first few hops (from my home internet connection) removed. BTW, hop 9 is a customer router conveniently configured with no ip unreachables. 7 andc-br-3-f2-0.atlantic.net (209.208.9.138) 47.951 ms 56.096 ms 56.154 ms 8 ocalflxa-br-1-s1-0.atlantic.net (209.208.112.98) 56.199 ms 56.320 ms 56.196 ms 9 * * * 10 sl-bb20-dc-6-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.174) 80.774 ms 81.030 ms 81.821 ms Was the first visibile IP hop of the dups always that Sprint router? If someone from Level3 transport can wrap their head around this, I'd love to know what's really going on...but at least it's no longer an urgent problem for me. Level3 is your circuit provider?
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Paul Wall wrote: If it were as easy as you make it sound, I can assure you people would be doing it. People are. I (and others) mentioned SIX TorIX, plus I mentioned PaNAP. Then there's AtlantaIX, although that recently got slurped by TelX. (Hrmmm, could one of the dangers of a coop be borg'ed by for- profit entity looking to rip out every cent they can? :) Tons of others exist, in big and little markets. There's one in 365 Main SF, there's KleyReX in the same building as DE-CIX, Big APE in 111 8th, NYCx there too, ChicagoIX just opened, etc., etc. Trust me, it _is_ being done. Also, does your Equinix MSA contain a non-compete clause, which could be interpreted to mean you can't run a competing IX (metro fabric, exchange, whatever) out of their facilities? I hear many do. So don't run it in an Equinix or SD cage. -- TTFN, patrick On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Warning: This may actually be operational too. Given Cogent (and others) recent pursuit of sub $4/mb/s transit... and the relatively flat cost of a paid peering fabric (even at 10G) and the O(N) costs for cross-connects, the thought of revisiting the old peering coops presented itself again. Assuming 10G PNI model: Assuming even nominal cross-connect fees of $100-$300/month per fiber pair, plus router port costs for each private peer (assuming you aren't at 10% utilization on the port) at a commercial exchange, you are eating a pretty significant cost per megabit you are actually moving. (plug in your numbers here). Assumption: Above 1Gb/s utilization, this makes sense or you are counting on growth. Below 10% you would normally go to a paid peering fabric where you are paying cross connect + a flat port charge + router port for 1-N peers and hoping that enough utilization occurs that you get 10% utilization (to recover capex, opex, etc) and then whatever additional utilization you need to cover the flat port charge or you are counting on growth. A coop, best-effort switch fabric colo'd at a few sites would allow participants to peer off traffic at a price of the order of a single cross-connect (~$500/month per 10G port is possible, maybe less), private-VLANs all-around, or to only-mutually approved peers (e.g. via an automated web interface, prior art) to avoid many of the /old/ issues. No requirement for multi-lateral peering. You could peer, sell transit, buy transit, multicast, etc. The way I figure it, it removes approximately an order of magnitude from the operational cost of peering with more than a handful of your largest single talkers. Especially as 100G LAN Ethernet becomes production before 100G WAN connections become commonplace. Economic theory (assuming that worked on the Internet) suggests this would allow for the increase in number of peers by approximately an order of magnitude (maybe more). Does this actually improve the present-day rationale to peer, or are most operations' costs so far above (from long haul, etc) or so far below (since the cost of transit has dropped so much) that this is no longer a relevant part of the equation? Warning: This may actually be operational too. Deepak Jain AiNET
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
Yes you are absolutely correct. Smaller players doing this for fun and experimentation if not only a good idea, I believe it is critical for the internet to grow and change. Ask UUNET how long it takes them to get approval to implement something bigor even small. Two pts thought. First, the cross connects at most of these locations are still going to be a major monthly INVESTMENT unless the colo provider gets involved. As was stated earlier $500 MRC has to be justified be costs savings or other benefits. Second, I have heard a lot of talk about SIX over the last year or so and there is no guarantees that situation won't change. Telx and others can do a fine job. I have not heard Any2 mentioned and their traffic levels have been very good while keeping ports cost effective. Can that model scale? Basically it's about the community deciding to support something. Perhaps it's more about the players then the best model. This business is still run significantly on trust and reputation of the people running the infrastructure. No? David On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Aug 12, 2008, at 9:58 AM, David Diaz wrote: Love the Borg comment. Thanx. Great thread. Old topic. It recycles every couple of years. Not to speak for telx or Mike L but I do not think anyone was motivated to Borg anything but to support AIX. 10Gig ports are expensive. I like the idea of more exchange points in that they usually provide more recovery pts and redundancy, allow the sharing of skills and knowledge in the local community, and provide flexibility for growth and change of the internet. How many COs do we have? There has long been the argument of how many IXs are needed, would it be 1 per state? What happens with Voip, IPtv etc. As for coops I think the argument is would the larger traffic players feel comfortable connecting and making it a part of their networks? Who are the anchors and 1st movers? What are the guarantees that any investment in infrastructure needed to get there will be recovered over X years... Will the coop fold before that pt? Wll it have the resources to upgrade. Who said anything about larger traffic players? What's wrong with a bunch of little guys getting together to trade traffic, for fun and profit? The smaller guys might have a better focus on performance in the local area (gamers anyone?), plus they tend to pay more per Mbps because they don't have scale, which makes moving a little traffic off more economical. All that said, Akamai is a pretty big network and they're present at a lot of these small IXen. Ditto for local eyeball networks, e.g. Shaw @ SIX, Rogers @ TorIX, etc. I so not think a poison pill is needed. Perhaps just a group or company championing Coops and giving them booth-space at events, sponsoring conference travels, providing rack space etc. But if it's in the BEST interest of the members to have a larger group come in and take over then what is the harm? What is the alternative, have members pay membership fees? Corp Sponsorship? I agree on much of this. But as with most things it comes down to money. Do members have a financial incentive to join and what is the financial model to keep the Coop moving forward as a success. Several small IXes have grown quite a bit with no or very small membership fees. Look at the ones I mentioned. I think SIX is the largest, but they're all not that tiny. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: impossible circuit
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are dups generated on traffic going over that DS3 from (rather than to) the Ocala side? The dupes are only generated in the Orlando-Ocala direction. Does the DS3 cross Sprint's network? The DS3 enters an Embarq (the telco formerly known as Sprint) central office. AFAIK, the only portion of the circuit handled by Embarq is where it's handed to them in the CO where our gear is colo'd. What would happen if you pinged the Ocala router such that the TTL was 1 when travelling over the DS3? From your traceroute it seems it travelled two IP hops that did not send ICMP error messages, but it might just be that the ICMP errors from the Ocala router are arriving first. Based on where the dupes are coming from, I assume pinging across the DS3 with TTL tuned to expire at the Ocala side would result in TTL exceeded messages from both Ocala and the Sprint router where the packets are injected into Sprint's network. It doesn't look as if IOS gives the option to set TTL on ping...so I'd try this from a Linux machine in our data center. traffic was actually jumping off our network and coming back in via Level3, I could see/block at least some of that using an ACL on our interface to Level3. How do you explain it, when you ping the remote end of a DS3 interface with a single echo request packet and see 5 copies of that echo request arrive at one of your transit provider interfaces? Just clarifying: 5 duplicates were being generated for every packet that crossed the DS3, not just 1 packet that looped causing 5 duplicates? Yes. With the ACL on our Level3 transit, I blocked 5 dupes for each echo request sent from the Orlando end of the DS3 to the Ocala end. 9 * * * 10 sl-bb20-dc-6-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.174) 80.774 ms 81.030 ms 81.821 ms Was the first visibile IP hop of the dups always that Sprint router? No. That's one of the wild things about it. Depending on who's network you trace from (we did traces from a bunch of route servers and looking glasses. Some traces would show a pair of private IP hops before the Sprintlink IPs. Some would simply show a different Sprint router as the first off-net hop. If I break it again some night, I'll collect a few different examples. Level3 is your circuit provider? Yes. Originally it was a Progress Telecom circuit...but Level3 borged them. -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:11:13AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Several small IXes have grown quite a bit with no or very small membership fees. Look at the ones I mentioned. I think SIX is the largest, but they're all not that tiny. TorIX, for many years, was financed by announcing an upcoming expediture, and waiting to see if one of the members stepped up (or usually, the member suggesting the expenditure, also covering its cost), and if no-one was willing to foot the entire bill, the hat was passed around until it filled sufficiently. they have since formalized into a not-for-profit (i stepped away, physically and involvement-wise), but my understanding is that financially, it is using the same funding model. TorIX was initially founded by driving a stake (a single Cisco 2900 as i recall) in the ground and inviting all-comers (each having to simply pay to drag connectivity to the stake). the initial membership was small to medium (quasi-large) ISP's, the largest of which were finding they were locked out of the incumbent IX (CanIX) for various financial and political reasons. (that CanIX appears to have vaporized, and its name now taken by some colo provider) some joined for monetary reasons, some for the fun of it, others because it became a cost effective way to shunt packets (even when weighed against the best-effort management) TorIX is now sustaining 10Gbps across some 90+ peers, with a decent spectrum of eyeballs, content-only providers and transit providers. i would bet that if someone analyzed the data, that it has maintained 5 9's reliability too, or pretty damn close for a best-effort facility. -- Jim Mercer[EMAIL PROTECTED]+971 55 410-5633 I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I live here and I'm going to take a leak. - Lester Pearson in 1967, during a meeting between himself and President Lyndon Johnson, whose Secret Service detail had taken over Pearson's cottage retreat. At one point, a Johnson guard asked Pearson, Who are you and where are you going?
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
I guess they would be more interesting deployed in Ashburn or some place similar because you could exclude the cost of bringing traffic to the exchange if the equipment (and bits) are already transported through that facility. Certainly there are some of us who would see this as advantageous. The cost of going through the Equinix public switch is relatively high, high enough that at the point we could justify it, it's cheaper and easier to just run a private connection or ten, and have more peering capacity, which turns into an argument against the Equinix service. Were it just the cost of a cross-connect plus a modest membership fee, with at least some other participants that had a relatively open peering policy, it would be quite interesting. Bonus points for being able to buy transit or routes. I had been working towards doing something like this in the Milwaukee area years ago, but the volume and interest wasn't quite there. I can't easily see it failing in the same way in Ashburn... there are a bunch of people who we exchange traffic with that are in the XXMbps range, maybe not enough to justify a private cross connect, but certainly good enough for a shared switch. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
Speaking of AtlantaIX, the new business model seems less attractive for customers than the old one. Can anyone speak to why it got sold? Was it failing financially or someone just wanted to cash out? On 8/12/08, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Paul Wall wrote: If it were as easy as you make it sound, I can assure you people would be doing it. People are. I (and others) mentioned SIX TorIX, plus I mentioned PaNAP. Then there's AtlantaIX, although that recently got slurped by TelX. (Hrmmm, could one of the dangers of a coop be borg'ed by for-profit entity looking to rip out every cent they can? :) Tons of others exist, in big and little markets. There's one in 365 Main SF, there's KleyReX in the same building as DE-CIX, Big APE in 111 8th, NYCx there too, ChicagoIX just opened, etc., etc. Trust me, it _is_ being done. Also, does your Equinix MSA contain a non-compete clause, which could be interpreted to mean you can't run a competing IX (metro fabric, exchange, whatever) out of their facilities? I hear many do. So don't run it in an Equinix or SD cage. -- TTFN, patrick On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Warning: This may actually be operational too. Given Cogent (and others) recent pursuit of sub $4/mb/s transit... and the relatively flat cost of a paid peering fabric (even at 10G) and the O(N) costs for cross-connects, the thought of revisiting the old peering coops presented itself again. Assuming 10G PNI model: Assuming even nominal cross-connect fees of $100-$300/month per fiber pair, plus router port costs for each private peer (assuming you aren't at 10% utilization on the port) at a commercial exchange, you are eating a pretty significant cost per megabit you are actually moving. (plug in your numbers here). Assumption: Above 1Gb/s utilization, this makes sense or you are counting on growth. Below 10% you would normally go to a paid peering fabric where you are paying cross connect + a flat port charge + router port for 1-N peers and hoping that enough utilization occurs that you get 10% utilization (to recover capex, opex, etc) and then whatever additional utilization you need to cover the flat port charge or you are counting on growth. A coop, best-effort switch fabric colo'd at a few sites would allow participants to peer off traffic at a price of the order of a single cross-connect (~$500/month per 10G port is possible, maybe less), private-VLANs all-around, or to only-mutually approved peers (e.g. via an automated web interface, prior art) to avoid many of the /old/ issues. No requirement for multi-lateral peering. You could peer, sell transit, buy transit, multicast, etc. The way I figure it, it removes approximately an order of magnitude from the operational cost of peering with more than a handful of your largest single talkers. Especially as 100G LAN Ethernet becomes production before 100G WAN connections become commonplace. Economic theory (assuming that worked on the Internet) suggests this would allow for the increase in number of peers by approximately an order of magnitude (maybe more). Does this actually improve the present-day rationale to peer, or are most operations' costs so far above (from long haul, etc) or so far below (since the cost of transit has dropped so much) that this is no longer a relevant part of the equation? Warning: This may actually be operational too. Deepak Jain AiNET
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Aug 12, 2008, at 10:23 AM, David Diaz wrote: Second, I have heard a lot of talk about SIX over the last year or so and there is no guarantees that situation won't change. As a board member of SIX, I can tell you that we are not going away any time soon. -- TTFN, patrick
Comcast Gets FCC Slap on Wrist
http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/frame/2008/081108wan1.html Robert D. Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Network Engineer 352-273-0113 Phone CNS - Network Services 352-392-2061 CNS Receptionist University of Florida 352-392-9440 FAX Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC Gainesville, FL 32611 321-663-0421 Cell
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On 12 Aug 2008, at 04:15, Deepak Jain wrote: A coop, best-effort switch fabric colo'd at a few sites would allow participants to peer off traffic at a price of the order of a single cross-connect (~$500/month per 10G port is possible, maybe less) Most of the Internet Exchanges in Europe that quickly spring to mind as successful, are run as co-operative entities, similar to what you describe. Specifically, most (all?) of the larger ones over here run as independent bodies that are owned mutually -- that is to say, owned by all of the participators at the exchange. The model is popular, and many hundreds of GB/s of traffic is exchanged on switches run by mutual organisations in Europe. This works really well because it means there is no commercial/profit motivation to operate significantly above cost-recovery levels. Here, costs mean the CapEx, OpEx, and any community/member sanctioned projects. Where it breaks is when we have to tell a network with lots of traffic that in order to participate at the exchange, they have to become a member (part owner) of the organisation. Due to organisational or even regulatory issues, it may not be legal to sell services (exchange ports) to non members/owners. This doesn't frighten the engineer asking for a connection, but it causes some concern at C*O level (err, I might have to declare this to shareholders/regulators...) I think my message to you would be that if you have a bunch of colleagues at other organisations near you that want to start peering ... configure a switch, peer, and take it from there as you grow ! I hope your new exchange is successful ! Best wishes Andy Davidson Declared hat - www.lonap.net (London, UK based mutual IX)
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Could one of the dangers of a coop be borg'ed by for-profit entity looking to rip out every cent they can? That's one of the reasons many of them incorporate as non-profits... Under the tax laws of most countries, the U.S. and Canada included, non-profits are legaly protected against acquisition by for-profits. -Bill
RE: Coop Peering Fabric??
-Original Message- From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:33 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Coop Peering Fabric?? On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Could one of the dangers of a coop be borg'ed by for-profit entity looking to rip out every cent they can? That's one of the reasons many of them incorporate as non-profits... Under the tax laws of most countries, the U.S. and Canada included, non-profits are legaly protected against acquisition by for-profits. Do any of these operations post their tax returns online? -M
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Paul Wall wrote: If it were as easy as you make it sound, I can assure you people would be doing it. Yup, they are. There are a bit over three hundred IXPs in the world, about eighty of them in the U.S., and the vast majority of them were built by ISPs solving problems for themselves, as Deepak is suggesting. -Bill
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tons of others exist, in big and little markets. There's one in 365 Main SF, there's KleyReX in the same building as DE-CIX, Big APE in 111 8th, NYCx there too, ChicagoIX just opened, etc., etc. Excellent point on Europe. Not so much in the United States. Do SFMIX, BIG APE, NYCX, etc 1) have more than a half dozen participants 2) exchange any traffic other than BGP keep-alives and ARP? :) I think not. When you look at why not, it's usually always predatory practices on the part of various collo and IX operators preventing widespread adoptation. If CHIX were doing real traffic, do you think Equinix would allow them to remain accessible from their suites, and in a cost-effective manner? Trust me, it _is_ being done. It's being done, just not on a large scale in the United States outside of the SIX. Paul
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
Paul Wall wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tons of others exist, in big and little markets. There's one in 365 Main SF, there's KleyReX in the same building as DE-CIX, Big APE in 111 8th, NYCx there too, ChicagoIX just opened, etc., etc. Excellent point on Europe. Not so much in the United States. Do SFMIX, BIG APE, NYCX, etc 1) have more than a half dozen participants 2) exchange any traffic other than BGP keep-alives and ARP? :) I think not. When you look at why not, it's usually always predatory practices on the part of various collo and IX operators preventing widespread adoptation. If CHIX were doing real traffic, do you think Equinix would allow them to remain accessible from their suites, and in a cost-effective manner? Trust me, it _is_ being done. It's being done, just not on a large scale in the United States outside of the SIX. Is there a more appropriate place for interested parties to discuss the possible creation of such a beast in the WDC area? I know we have about a lot of optical capacity we could help contribute to a stake in the ground between Equinix/Ash and a facility less than 1ms away if there is interest. Deepak
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a more appropriate place for interested parties to discuss the possible creation of such a beast in the WDC area? I know we have about a lot of optical capacity we could help contribute to a stake in the ground between Equinix/Ash and a facility less than 1ms away if there is interest. And people in the Equinix campus would connect to this exchange how exactly? I'm not trying to downplay your generous offer, though I'm afraid you're missing the underlying problem. Drive Slow, Paul
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
Paul Wall wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a more appropriate place for interested parties to discuss the possible creation of such a beast in the WDC area? I know we have about a lot of optical capacity we could help contribute to a stake in the ground between Equinix/Ash and a facility less than 1ms away if there is interest. And people in the Equinix campus would connect to this exchange how exactly? I'm not trying to downplay your generous offer, though I'm afraid you're missing the underlying problem. Cross-connects to a cabinet @ Equinix same as if the switch were on-site? If Equinix were to block cross-connects inside their facility, that would seem a little farther reaching than a non-compete. Deepak
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Deepak Jain wrote: Is there a more appropriate place for interested parties to discuss the possible creation of such a beast in the WDC area? I know we have about a lot of optical capacity we could help contribute to a stake in the ground between Equinix/Ash and a facility less than 1ms away if there is interest. I don't know anything about your optical capacity, but it sure does seem like ANY2 DC has everything you are looking for except for easy access from Ashburn. It seems to me an organization (coop, non-profit, etc) that could enable access to Any2 from Ashburn would be quite interesting. CRG might even help. -Matt
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
Matt Liotta wrote: On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Deepak Jain wrote: Is there a more appropriate place for interested parties to discuss the possible creation of such a beast in the WDC area? I know we have about a lot of optical capacity we could help contribute to a stake in the ground between Equinix/Ash and a facility less than 1ms away if there is interest. I don't know anything about your optical capacity, but it sure does seem like ANY2 DC has everything you are looking for except for easy access from Ashburn. It seems to me an organization (coop, non-profit, etc) that could enable access to Any2 from Ashburn would be quite interesting. CRG might even help. There are lots of providers that can do connectivity between Any2 and Equinix. It has been suggested privately that some Equinix MSAs may prevent this sort of thing. In fact, to prevent this sort of thing, I suggested providing x-connects from 1275 AND Equinix to another facility to prevent Borg'ing ops in the future. I am not aware of Any2 pricing, but I'm sure the 6 members of CRG K Street's Any2 would be happy to join any new initiative (either a larger Any2 or something new). Deepak
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Aug 12, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Deepak Jain wrote: There are lots of providers that can do connectivity between Any2 and Equinix. It has been suggested privately that some Equinix MSAs may prevent this sort of thing. In fact, to prevent this sort of thing, I suggested providing x-connects from 1275 AND Equinix to another facility to prevent Borg'ing ops in the future. I am not aware of Any2 pricing, but I'm sure the 6 members of CRG K Street's Any2 would be happy to join any new initiative (either a larger Any2 or something new). My understanding is that ports are currently free on Any2. I think I remember that normally they are $1000 annually for GigE. CRG has also indicated that they plan to interconnect their Any2 fabrics in NYC and Miami with DC much like they have done in California. -Matt
RE: Coop Peering Fabric??
Matt Any2 is open to support any initiative that will reinforce development of networks and creativity within the Internet-connected community. There have been somewhat successful initiatives at locations such as the SIX to interconnect exchange points, and Any2 is open to contributing to similar projects. In locations such as California and Washington DC, Equinix and CRG West have many common facility-based and services networks. A tenant in either location should find it fairly easy to interconnect with a 3rd party between the facilities. To my knowledge CRG West, Equinix, SD, Savvis, nor any other collocation or IXP provider prejudices tenants for interconnections terminating beyond their demarcation point. We certainly do not prevent cross-connects outside of our properties to competitor sites. In a couple of our properties we even facility-manage multiple IXPs within the same building No desire to BORG operations! John -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:30 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Coop Peering Fabric?? On Aug 12, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Deepak Jain wrote: There are lots of providers that can do connectivity between Any2 and Equinix. It has been suggested privately that some Equinix MSAs may prevent this sort of thing. In fact, to prevent this sort of thing, I suggested providing x-connects from 1275 AND Equinix to another facility to prevent Borg'ing ops in the future. I am not aware of Any2 pricing, but I'm sure the 6 members of CRG K Street's Any2 would be happy to join any new initiative (either a larger Any2 or something new). My understanding is that ports are currently free on Any2. I think I remember that normally they are $1000 annually for GigE. CRG has also indicated that they plan to interconnect their Any2 fabrics in NYC and Miami with DC much like they have done in California. -Matt
RE: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Could one of the dangers of a coop be borg'ed by for-profit entity looking to rip out every cent they can? That's one of the reasons many of them incorporate as non-profits... Under the tax laws of most countries, the U.S. and Canada included, non-profits are legaly protected against acquisition by for-profits. Do any of these operations post their tax returns online? The Seattle IX (SIX) filings, along with financial reports to the membership, are openly maintained at: http://www.seattleix.net/docs/ Chris
Traceroute and random UDP ports
Hi, The outgoing packets from traceroute are sent towards the destination using UDP and very high port numbers, typically in the range of 32,768 and higher. This is because no one is gernally expected to run UDP services up there, so when the packet finally reaches the destination, traceroute can tell that it got to the end (because the ICMP changes from TTL exceeded to port unreachable). My question is: What if the receiver is actually listening on one of the random UDP ports? What would happen in such cases? Also, why do we increase the UDP port number with each subsequent traceroute packet that is sent? Thanks, Glen
Re: Traceroute and random UDP ports
On Aug 12, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Glen Kent wrote: The outgoing packets from traceroute are sent towards the destination using UDP and very high port numbers, typically in the range of 32,768 and higher. This is because no one is gernally expected to run UDP services up there, so when the packet finally reaches the destination, traceroute can tell that it got to the end (because the ICMP changes from TTL exceeded to port unreachable). My question is: What if the receiver is actually listening on one of the random UDP ports? What would happen in such cases? Depends on what is running there. Given people randomizing things like DNS ephemeral ports, if they're not careful, it will probably happen more often. Also, why do we increase the UDP port number with each subsequent traceroute packet that is sent? So you know which hop sent the packet back. -- TTFN, patrick
RE: was bogon filters, now Brief Segue on 1918
Michael - good points all, and saved me typing out a reply. Additionally, using up the RFC1918 space isn't the only problem ... the previously mentioned collision problems between so-called private networks become more and more likely (until almost guaranteed). Only nit: In any case, IPv4 is yesterday's news. Nowadays everyone is scrambling to integrate IPv6 into their networks and shift services onto IPv6. ... I would say they should be doing so; I wish more were!! /TJ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:06 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: was bogon filters, now Brief Segue on 1918 Your point seemed to be that it is not a large enough allocation of IPs for an international enterprise of 80K souls. My rebuttal is: 16.5 million IPs isn't enough? You don't seem to understand how IPv4 networks are designed and how that interacts with scale, i.e. the large sprawling networks that international enterprises have. You don't simply count out x addresses per employee. Instead, you design a subnet architecture that a) can grow at all levels, and b) can be cut off the network when you sell off a branch operation or two. This leads to large amounts of IP addresses used up in padding at all levels, which then leads to these organizations running out of RFC 1918 space, a more and more common occurence. This, in itself, is a good incentive to move to IPv6, since the seemingly wasteful subnet architecture is considered best practice with IPv6, and a ULA prefix or two gives you lots of space to keep growing. What are we talking about then? 100 IPs per person--say each person has 10 PCs, 10 printers, 10 automated factory machines, 10 lab instruments, 49 servers and the soda machine on their network? Nope. We are not talking about people, but about network architecture and topology. Two people in one office need two addresses. Put them in separate offices and they need two subnets. Topology dominates the design. I don't think you have that many soda machines. Even on 5 continents. Even with your growing Asian market, your suppliers, and the whole marketing team. I believe the first two companies to run out of RFC 1918 space (or to project that it would happen) are Comcast, and American cable provider in one continent, and a Japanese cable provider on a small Pacific island next to China. //Err. Doing it wrong does not justify doing it wrong. Cute sound bites does not make you an expert in anything. In any case, IPv4 is yesterday's news. Nowadays everyone is scrambling to integrate IPv6 into their networks and shift services onto IPv6. --Michael Dillon
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
That's one of the reasons many of them incorporate as non-profits... Under the tax laws of most countries, the U.S. and Canada included, non-profits are legaly protected against acquisition by for-profits. Do any of these operations post their tax returns online? -M They might be posted at http://www.guidestar.org/ -- _ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM [EMAIL PROTECTED] Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
That's one of the reasons many of them incorporate as non-profits... Under the tax laws of most countries, the U.S. and Canada included, non-profits are legaly protected against acquisition by for-profits. Do any of these operations post their tax returns online? In the US, every non-profit has to file an annual financial report on form 990 or, for small ones, 990-EZ. These are by law open to public inspection, and if you call, write, fax or e-mail them and ask for a copy they better send you one. The Foundation Center has a fairly good online 990 database: http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php If you're wondering what my signature looks like, search for Domain Assurance Council R's, John
Re: Coop Peering Fabric??
On Aug 12, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Paul Wall wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tons of others exist, in big and little markets. There's one in 365 Main SF, there's KleyReX in the same building as DE-CIX, Big APE in 111 8th, NYCx there too, ChicagoIX just opened, etc., etc. Excellent point on Europe. Not so much in the United States. Do SFMIX, BIG APE, NYCX, etc 1) have more than a half dozen participants 2) exchange any traffic other than BGP keep-alives and ARP? :) I think not. When you look at why not, it's usually always predatory practices on the part of various collo and IX operators preventing widespread adoptation. If CHIX were doing real traffic, do you think Equinix would allow them to remain accessible from their suites, and in a cost-effective manner? I'm guessing the answer to 1 2 is yes. Proof of at least participant count: http://www.ny6ix.net/. Trust me, it _is_ being done. It's being done, just not on a large scale in the United States outside of the SIX. Define large. For instance, Atlanta IX had more traffic than PAIX in the same building last I checked. And how large does it need to be to save a network $300/month? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: facebook worm
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Patrick Giagnocavo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turning nanog into a rehash of digg's technology section or the front page of news.com reduces nanog's utility. --Patrick Are you saying that all network professionals should read digg or news.com? :-) Btw, slashdot seemed to have missed it.
