Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2017-08-09 10:11, Hiers, David wrote:
> That is what our lawyers are starting to figure out, too.  Very glad to see 
> them converging on the tribal wisdom.

late to discussion.

You might get some organisations which require you to provide
intra-canada routes for privacy reasons. But at the moment there are no
laws that require it.

Also, you need to consider that the way the Internet is designed, should
a Montréal-Toroonto link go down, traffic will automatically reroute
Montréal-New-York-Chicago-Toronto. So it becomes hard to *guarantee*
intra-Canadian routes. (such arrangements do exist for military type of
classified private networks).


It is consumer pressure and advocacy groups who are raising the issue of
intra-Canada routing. (Patriot Act in USA gets NSA to listen to any/all
intl traffic, and Canada-USA-Canada traffic is considered such by USA).

But from a regulatory poimt of view, the most one could expect would be
a requireement to openly peer at exchanges where a netowrk has a
presence. (as opposed to garanteeing intra-canada routes). And even that
isn't on horizon at the moment.

Note that normal businesses want to peer because it reduces costs.  The
old incumbents such as Bell work on a monopoly mentality of forcing
people to buy transit from them, so allowing peering is against their
philosophy of forcing yo to buy transit. (and if you don't buy from
them, you then have to buy extra capacity to USA to connect to them).

Some US transit providers, after having been here for a while, start to
get their own intra-Canada links (such as Montréal to Toronto) where
traffic warrants. reduced latency is likely the biggest winner in this.

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[LHC (k9m)]

You mean ROBALLOFUS right?

:-)

On August 8, 2017 5:33:28 PM PDT, Clayton Zekelman  wrote:
>
>
>With the peering policies of the major Canadian ISPs, you're 
>virtually guaranteed to hairpin through the US on most paths.
>
>Robellus (Rogers, Bell & Telus) will peer with you at any of their 
>major Canadian peering points, such as NYC, Chicago or LA.
>
>
>
>At 10:01 AM 20/07/2017, Hiers, David wrote:
>>Hi,
>>We're looking to extend some services into Canada.  While our 
>>lawyers dig into it, I thought that I'd ask the hive mind about 
>>border restrictions.
>>
>>For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing 
>>between Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to 
>>Montreal, do you have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, 
>>say, Syracuse, New York?
>>
>>I'm asking network operators about packet routing; data storage is a 
>>very different matter, of course.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>David
>>
>>--
>>This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of 
>>the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and 
>>confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended 
>>recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, 
>>you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication 
>>is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in 
>>error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the 
>>message and any attachments from your system.
>
>-- 
>
>Clayton Zekelman
>Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
>Windsor, Ontario
>N8W 1H4
>
>tel. 519-985-8410
>fax. 519-985-8409

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

RE: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Hiers, David]

That is what our lawyers are starting to figure out, too.  Very glad to see 
them converging on the tribal wisdom.

Cheers,

David


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Kerr
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:03 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

Canadian  here who's evaluated service providers and dealt with legal 
requirements for our customers...

Generally we weren't worried about data travelling through the US based on
normal internet routes, as long as it was encrypted.   The thing we usually
specified in RFPs was that the data could never be stored in the US.

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 at 17:52 Dave Cohen <craetd...@gmail.com> wrote

> It seems to me the original question was asking about it more from a 
> legal perspective, in other words does Canadian traffic have to stay in 
> Canada.
> IANAL (or a Canadian), but the answer is "mostly, no, especially as 
> related to publicly routed traffic" as should be evidenced based on 
> what's already been discussed here. In other words, there is 
> restricted traffic but unless you're making a play for MAN/WAN type 
> service on owned infrastructure, those requirements are unlikely to arise.
>
> To support the macro point, there is some big-boy level peering in 
> Toronto but not really much else outside that, but there are plenty of 
> routes that don't cross the border if you don't have to jump networks 
> to your destination, for example going to an AWS on ramp in Canada 
> using a native partner network, especially in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.
>
> Dave Cohen
> craetd...@gmail.com
>
> > On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> >charset=us-ascii
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Clayton Zekelman <clay...@mnsi.net> wrote:
> >> =20
> >> =20
> >> =20
> >> With the peering policies of the major Canadian ISPs, you're 
> >> virtually =
> > guaranteed to hairpin through the US on most paths.
> >> =20
> >> Robellus (Rogers, Bell & Telus) will peer with you at any of their 
> >> =
> > major Canadian peering points, such as NYC, Chicago or LA.
> >
> > To be fair, Rogers does peer in Toronto.  Along with New York, 
> > Chicago, = Seattle, and Ashburn.
> >
> >-Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Disposition: attachment;
> >filename=signature.asc
> > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
> >name=signature.asc
> > Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> >
> > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJZilooAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+HgNsQAIPkgL/lVL/j1sdPyiyQsepE
> > TCyHm4bsAq6m085kXoRj/IWn+KsVwmAq8ZGKnKEAiozmrSeyxAa2vmw5Kfs57l1/
> > crBima+EOOlPT4VcD7tv9e8yEiVdjDuMp5tnLI238qCfIlHeHRtuU7CClzWPv6uD
> > 3jCNIBEcScrLWz37Ofm/D2AkYRAhhK5H8I417Y/39TH4MIoIKFsGbvWwpl30Fv8r
> > 5phO0MrTP6mB8niHne6HTxyMED5TGQpVEL2Qgh6qgaI9vzAs5/47KwwY57tZpxaL
> > v9GjkPJ4Ql7QVWbsSkXnFmHxXzqaHXAfg8SR+gsCN42Jyn99AIyAAwdALhqc4RuZ
> > ydi+lOlEutAMndA01CnrI81Eu/RpWrN+q/vi37W2rb6EPTPcCz2196JDlpC6VVW6
> > tJOMNuP6Pa/ee52Cxu6RWwA4QZ6QVIT9fbDcRFXTGNuohwP8XVpujcsPLChzsFXA
> > Y2nt+TliL697lTZNbTZEzQ0f9w2rpCDpcLjTMCR8MNWZ4MjQHL3eDgO5ZIWHPTQf
> > ggR1Dz2EhPSXXZdvN7KPh1q9rhRb2VUPSn3EeEDo2TjgUVeUlunsDg/ILpf8lxUY
> > RTsXe5Nky7YqXKDG4HSlLF3R/RtfaVqKJfjljYg351cs40rzivzjD2TJ8r35RQeW
> > btKUtEvrcU28g15nOhLG
> > =MTUG
> > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> >
> > --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E--
> >
>

--
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message 
and any attachments from your system.

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Dave Cohen]

Sorta, kinda. The various ASs operated by Zayo are more interconnected than 
that description would imply. The traditional mode of operation on an "acquired 
AS" has been to turn down any upstream transit as quickly as contractually 
possible and upgrade NNI capacity between that AS and 6461 to compensate. Over 
time, legacy devices are overbuilt or replaced with ones directly on 6461. The 
net-net of it is that most traffic will end up egressing to other providers via 
6461's peering after a fairly short period, although this isn't universally 
true, especially for "local" traffic (e.g. traffic originating on the Neo AS 
staying in France, etc.). 

Dave Cohen
craetd...@gmail.com

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:13 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
> 
> It is worth noting, however, that the former AllStream ASN (formerly AT
> Canada) AS15290 is a completely different thing, and has distinct
> infrastructure and routing from the AboveNet ASN which is operated by Zayo.
> Although they are probably using "Free" Zayo transport by now.
> 
> If I am grossly wrong and anybody from layer 3 network operations at Zayo
> wants to chime in and tell us about the 40,000 ft view of their plans to
> combine AS15290 and AS6461, I am sure the community would be very
> interested.
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Fulton  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> TR,
>> 
>> MTS Allstream is no longer a combined entity.  MTS was purchased by Bell
>> Canada and Allstream was purchased by Zayo.
>> 
>> -- Stephen
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2017-08-08 8:19 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bill,
>>> 
>>> What does Bell buying MTS do? Does it change your statement or will the
>>> MTS portion of Bell still peer locally?
>>> 
>>> Tom
>>> 
 On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:
 
 
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Hiers, David  wrote:
> For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing
> between Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to
> Montreal, do you have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, say,
> Syracuse, New York?
> 
 
 No.  In fact, Bell Canada / Bell Aliant and Telus guarantee that you
 _will_ go through Chicago, Seattle, New York, or Ashburn, since none of
 them peer anywhere in Canada at all.
 
 Last I checked (November of last year) the best-connected commercial
 networks (i.e. not CANARIE) in Canada were Hurricane Electric, MTS
 Allstream, Primus, and Zip Telecom, all of which peer at three or more
 Canadian IXes.  So, they’re capable of keeping traffic in Canada so long as
 the other end isn’t on Bell or Telus, which only sell U.S. bandwidth to
 Canadians.
 
 In November, only 27% of intra-Canadian routes stayed within Canada; 64%
 went through the U.S.  That’s way worse than five years ago, when 60%
 stayed within Canada, and 38% went through the U.S.
 
 As has been pointed out, Canada has been building IXPs…  Just not as
 fast as the rest of the world has.  They’re behind the global average
 growth rate, and behind the U.S. growth rate, which is why the problem is
 getting worse.  Bandwidth costs are falling faster elsewhere, so they’re
 importing more foreign bandwidth.
 
-Bill
 
 
 
 
 
>>> 

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Rod Beck]

I am not sure that this answers your question, but carriers are looking for 
more diversity on cross border traffic. Right now virtually all Toronto/NYC 
runs through Buffalo and 350 Main, Buffalo. May be Montreal/NYC has more 
options.


There have been huge network builds in the US Northeast by Unite and 
Firstlight, which are providing optical backhaul from cell towers. So more 
routing options may be available than in the past.


An issue that no one discussed in the age of the fiber. The big carriers and 
the Web Giants do not want to 1998 manufactured fiber. And some of the Web 
Giants are only putting 4x 100 gig waves per fiber pair. So the incentive to 
create new diverse routes with new large fiber builds is growing.


- R.



From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Constantine A. Murenin 
<muren...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 1:54 AM
To: Hiers, David
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

On 20/07/2017, Hiers, David <david.hi...@cdk.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> We're looking to extend some services into Canada.  While our lawyers dig
> into it, I thought that I'd ask the hive mind about border restrictions.
>
> For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing between
> Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to Montreal, do you
> have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, say, Syracuse, New York?

Guarantee to whom?

Back a few years ago when I looked into it, most of the traffic within
Canada went through the US, e.g., since Bell didn't want to peer with
anyone in Canada, you'd go something like YYZ - ORD - YYZ, clearly
visible through the traceroute.

Possibly somewhat better nowadays — there's been quite a few new IX
POPs that popped up — but I doubt the scenario is a thing of the past.

P.S.  Just for the giggles — checked http://lg.he.net/ routing from
Looking Glass - Hurricane Electric (AS6939)<http://lg.he.net/>
lg.he.net
Hurricane Electric (AS6939) Network Looking Glass


core1.tor1.he.net to www.bell.ca<http://www.bell.ca> — still goes through 
Chicago, to
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Bell_logo.svg/120px-Bell_logo.svg.png]<http://www.bell.ca/>

Bell Canada - Mobile phones, TV, Internet and Home phone 
...<http://www.bell.ca/>
www.bell.ca
Bell is Canada's largest telecommunications company, providing Mobile phone, 
TV, high speed and wireless Internet, and residential Home phone services.


Montreal, from Toronto. :-)  Going straight to Montreal,
core1.ymq1.he.net, will route you to www.bell.ca<http://www.bell.ca> (still in 
Montreal)
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Bell_logo.svg/120px-Bell_logo.svg.png]<http://www.bell.ca/>

Bell Canada - Mobile phones, TV, Internet and Home phone 
...<http://www.bell.ca/>
www.bell.ca
Bell is Canada's largest telecommunications company, providing Mobile phone, 
TV, high speed and wireless Internet, and residential Home phone services.


through the peering at NYC.

P.P.S.  In other words — if someone wants guarantees, they better
explicitly ask you for it.

Cheers,
Constantine.
http://cm.su/
cm.su. — Constantine Murenin is Super User<http://cm.su/>
cm.su
Constantine Murenin is Super User Yes, it's true! Constantine.SU; BXR.SU; 
mdoc.su; nginx.conf 2016; GitHub; StackOverflow © 2016 Constantine A. Murenin 
(cnst)

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Rod Beck]

I would bet that most British Columbia traffic gets routed to 
Vancouver>Seattle. Just a hunch, but I suspect that connectivity capacity 
across Canada from British Columbia to the Eastern part of the country is 
pretty limited.


- R.



From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Keenan Tims 
<kt...@stargate.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 2:48 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

On 2017-08-08 17:10, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> No.  In fact, Bell Canada / Bell Aliant and Telus guarantee that you_will_  
> go through Chicago, Seattle, New York, or Ashburn, since none of them peer 
> anywhere in Canada at all.

The major national networks (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw, Zayo/Allstream)
do peer with each other and some other large / old Canadian networks
(e.g. MTS, SaskTel, Peer1) within Canada. While they do practice peering
protectionism and only purchase transit out of country, the situation is
not *quite* so bad that all traffic round-trips through the US.

Of course if neither side of the conversation has at least one of those
major networks as a transit upstream - which is most of the eyeballs and
most of the important Canadian content - you'll see that hop through
Chicago or Seattle (or worse). Which is exactly the way they like it.

Keenan

RE: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Hiers, David]

I can't thank everyone enough for their input and insight!

It sounds like my discovery didn't miss some glaringly obvious form, checkbox, 
agreement or community (NO-US-EH, for instance  ) to keep traffic from 
crossing the border.

Data *storage*, on the other hand, is a very different thing, and even a drunk 
intern can find the rules around that kind of thing.

Thanks again,

David
 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Dave Cohen
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 5:53 PM
To: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

It seems to me the original question was asking about it more from a legal 
perspective, in other words does Canadian traffic have to stay in Canada. IANAL 
(or a Canadian), but the answer is "mostly, no, especially as related to 
publicly routed traffic" as should be evidenced based on what's already been 
discussed here. In other words, there is restricted traffic but unless you're 
making a play for MAN/WAN type service on owned infrastructure, those 
requirements are unlikely to arise. 

To support the macro point, there is some big-boy level peering in Toronto but 
not really much else outside that, but there are plenty of routes that don't 
cross the border if you don't have to jump networks to your destination, for 
example going to an AWS on ramp in Canada using a native partner network, 
especially in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. 

Dave Cohen
craetd...@gmail.com

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>charset=us-ascii
> 
> 
>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Clayton Zekelman <clay...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> With the peering policies of the major Canadian ISPs, you're 
>> virtually =
> guaranteed to hairpin through the US on most paths.
>> =20
>> Robellus (Rogers, Bell & Telus) will peer with you at any of their =
> major Canadian peering points, such as NYC, Chicago or LA.
> 
> To be fair, Rogers does peer in Toronto.  Along with New York, 
> Chicago, = Seattle, and Ashburn.
> 
>-Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>filename=signature.asc
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
>name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJZilooAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+HgNsQAIPkgL/lVL/j1sdPyiyQsepE
> TCyHm4bsAq6m085kXoRj/IWn+KsVwmAq8ZGKnKEAiozmrSeyxAa2vmw5Kfs57l1/
> crBima+EOOlPT4VcD7tv9e8yEiVdjDuMp5tnLI238qCfIlHeHRtuU7CClzWPv6uD
> 3jCNIBEcScrLWz37Ofm/D2AkYRAhhK5H8I417Y/39TH4MIoIKFsGbvWwpl30Fv8r
> 5phO0MrTP6mB8niHne6HTxyMED5TGQpVEL2Qgh6qgaI9vzAs5/47KwwY57tZpxaL
> v9GjkPJ4Ql7QVWbsSkXnFmHxXzqaHXAfg8SR+gsCN42Jyn99AIyAAwdALhqc4RuZ
> ydi+lOlEutAMndA01CnrI81Eu/RpWrN+q/vi37W2rb6EPTPcCz2196JDlpC6VVW6
> tJOMNuP6Pa/ee52Cxu6RWwA4QZ6QVIT9fbDcRFXTGNuohwP8XVpujcsPLChzsFXA
> Y2nt+TliL697lTZNbTZEzQ0f9w2rpCDpcLjTMCR8MNWZ4MjQHL3eDgO5ZIWHPTQf
> ggR1Dz2EhPSXXZdvN7KPh1q9rhRb2VUPSn3EeEDo2TjgUVeUlunsDg/ILpf8lxUY
> RTsXe5Nky7YqXKDG4HSlLF3R/RtfaVqKJfjljYg351cs40rzivzjD2TJ8r35RQeW
> btKUtEvrcU28g15nOhLG
> =MTUG
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E--
> 

--
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message 
and any attachments from your system.

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Ahad Aboss]

David

Generally speaking, when customers have concerns about their traffic
crossing borders, they do ask upfront.

As a multinational operator you can only guarantee traffic if customers
asks and offcours pays the fee for special class of service.

Ahad

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 9:21 am, Hiers, David  wrote:

> Hi,
> We're looking to extend some services into Canada.  While our lawyers dig
> into it, I thought that I'd ask the hive mind about border restrictions.
>
> For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing between
> Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to Montreal, do
> you have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, say, Syracuse, New
> York?
>
> I'm asking network operators about packet routing; data storage is a very
> different matter, of course.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> --
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
> If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized
> representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, notify the sender immediately by
> return email and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
>

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Andrew Kerr]

Canadian  here who's evaluated service providers and dealt with legal
requirements for our customers...

Generally we weren't worried about data travelling through the US based on
normal internet routes, as long as it was encrypted.   The thing we usually
specified in RFPs was that the data could never be stored in the US.

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 at 17:52 Dave Cohen  wrote

> It seems to me the original question was asking about it more from a legal
> perspective, in other words does Canadian traffic have to stay in Canada.
> IANAL (or a Canadian), but the answer is "mostly, no, especially as related
> to publicly routed traffic" as should be evidenced based on what's already
> been discussed here. In other words, there is restricted traffic but unless
> you're making a play for MAN/WAN type service on owned infrastructure,
> those requirements are unlikely to arise.
>
> To support the macro point, there is some big-boy level peering in Toronto
> but not really much else outside that, but there are plenty of routes that
> don't cross the border if you don't have to jump networks to your
> destination, for example going to an AWS on ramp in Canada using a native
> partner network, especially in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.
>
> Dave Cohen
> craetd...@gmail.com
>
> > On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:
> >
> >
> > --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> >charset=us-ascii
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Clayton Zekelman  wrote:
> >> =20
> >> =20
> >> =20
> >> With the peering policies of the major Canadian ISPs, you're virtually =
> > guaranteed to hairpin through the US on most paths.
> >> =20
> >> Robellus (Rogers, Bell & Telus) will peer with you at any of their =
> > major Canadian peering points, such as NYC, Chicago or LA.
> >
> > To be fair, Rogers does peer in Toronto.  Along with New York, Chicago, =
> > Seattle, and Ashburn.
> >
> >-Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Disposition: attachment;
> >filename=signature.asc
> > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
> >name=signature.asc
> > Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> >
> > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJZilooAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+HgNsQAIPkgL/lVL/j1sdPyiyQsepE
> > TCyHm4bsAq6m085kXoRj/IWn+KsVwmAq8ZGKnKEAiozmrSeyxAa2vmw5Kfs57l1/
> > crBima+EOOlPT4VcD7tv9e8yEiVdjDuMp5tnLI238qCfIlHeHRtuU7CClzWPv6uD
> > 3jCNIBEcScrLWz37Ofm/D2AkYRAhhK5H8I417Y/39TH4MIoIKFsGbvWwpl30Fv8r
> > 5phO0MrTP6mB8niHne6HTxyMED5TGQpVEL2Qgh6qgaI9vzAs5/47KwwY57tZpxaL
> > v9GjkPJ4Ql7QVWbsSkXnFmHxXzqaHXAfg8SR+gsCN42Jyn99AIyAAwdALhqc4RuZ
> > ydi+lOlEutAMndA01CnrI81Eu/RpWrN+q/vi37W2rb6EPTPcCz2196JDlpC6VVW6
> > tJOMNuP6Pa/ee52Cxu6RWwA4QZ6QVIT9fbDcRFXTGNuohwP8XVpujcsPLChzsFXA
> > Y2nt+TliL697lTZNbTZEzQ0f9w2rpCDpcLjTMCR8MNWZ4MjQHL3eDgO5ZIWHPTQf
> > ggR1Dz2EhPSXXZdvN7KPh1q9rhRb2VUPSn3EeEDo2TjgUVeUlunsDg/ILpf8lxUY
> > RTsXe5Nky7YqXKDG4HSlLF3R/RtfaVqKJfjljYg351cs40rzivzjD2TJ8r35RQeW
> > btKUtEvrcU28g15nOhLG
> > =MTUG
> > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> >
> > --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E--
> >
>

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Rod Beck]

Hi Eric,


Allstream fiber goes counterclockwise from Toronto to Buffalo along the lake. 
Just like the rest of them. And at several places all these sysgtems are 
probably in the same conduit.


Finally, all fiber is exhausted Toronto/Buffalo. Existing players could not 
sell if they wanted to and no one selling dark on this route today.


- R.




From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Eric Kuhnke 
<eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:13 AM
To: Stephen Fulton; nanog@nanog.org list
Subject: Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

It is worth noting, however, that the former AllStream ASN (formerly AT
Canada) AS15290 is a completely different thing, and has distinct
infrastructure and routing from the AboveNet ASN which is operated by Zayo.
Although they are probably using "Free" Zayo transport by now.

If I am grossly wrong and anybody from layer 3 network operations at Zayo
wants to chime in and tell us about the 40,000 ft view of their plans to
combine AS15290 and AS6461, I am sure the community would be very
interested.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Fulton <s...@lists.esoteric.ca> wrote:

> TR,
>
> MTS Allstream is no longer a combined entity.  MTS was purchased by Bell
> Canada and Allstream was purchased by Zayo.
>
> -- Stephen
>
>
> On 2017-08-08 8:19 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> What does Bell buying MTS do? Does it change your statement or will the
>> MTS portion of Bell still peer locally?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Hiers, David <david.hi...@cdk.com> wrote:
>>>> For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing
>>>> between Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to
>>>> Montreal, do you have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, say,
>>>> Syracuse, New York?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No.  In fact, Bell Canada / Bell Aliant and Telus guarantee that you
>>> _will_ go through Chicago, Seattle, New York, or Ashburn, since none of
>>> them peer anywhere in Canada at all.
>>>
>>> Last I checked (November of last year) the best-connected commercial
>>> networks (i.e. not CANARIE) in Canada were Hurricane Electric, MTS
>>> Allstream, Primus, and Zip Telecom, all of which peer at three or more
>>> Canadian IXes.  So, they’re capable of keeping traffic in Canada so long as
>>> the other end isn’t on Bell or Telus, which only sell U.S. bandwidth to
>>> Canadians.
>>>
>>> In November, only 27% of intra-Canadian routes stayed within Canada; 64%
>>> went through the U.S.  That’s way worse than five years ago, when 60%
>>> stayed within Canada, and 38% went through the U.S.
>>>
>>> As has been pointed out, Canada has been building IXPs…  Just not as
>>> fast as the rest of the world has.  They’re behind the global average
>>> growth rate, and behind the U.S. growth rate, which is why the problem is
>>> getting worse.  Bandwidth costs are falling faster elsewhere, so they’re
>>> importing more foreign bandwidth.
>>>
>>> -Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Eric Dugas]

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Eric Kuhnke]

It is worth noting, however, that the former AllStream ASN (formerly AT
Canada) AS15290 is a completely different thing, and has distinct
infrastructure and routing from the AboveNet ASN which is operated by Zayo.
Although they are probably using "Free" Zayo transport by now.

If I am grossly wrong and anybody from layer 3 network operations at Zayo
wants to chime in and tell us about the 40,000 ft view of their plans to
combine AS15290 and AS6461, I am sure the community would be very
interested.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Fulton  wrote:

> TR,
>
> MTS Allstream is no longer a combined entity.  MTS was purchased by Bell
> Canada and Allstream was purchased by Zayo.
>
> -- Stephen
>
>
> On 2017-08-08 8:19 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> What does Bell buying MTS do? Does it change your statement or will the
>> MTS portion of Bell still peer locally?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Hiers, David  wrote:
 For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing
 between Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to
 Montreal, do you have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, say,
 Syracuse, New York?

>>>
>>> No.  In fact, Bell Canada / Bell Aliant and Telus guarantee that you
>>> _will_ go through Chicago, Seattle, New York, or Ashburn, since none of
>>> them peer anywhere in Canada at all.
>>>
>>> Last I checked (November of last year) the best-connected commercial
>>> networks (i.e. not CANARIE) in Canada were Hurricane Electric, MTS
>>> Allstream, Primus, and Zip Telecom, all of which peer at three or more
>>> Canadian IXes.  So, they’re capable of keeping traffic in Canada so long as
>>> the other end isn’t on Bell or Telus, which only sell U.S. bandwidth to
>>> Canadians.
>>>
>>> In November, only 27% of intra-Canadian routes stayed within Canada; 64%
>>> went through the U.S.  That’s way worse than five years ago, when 60%
>>> stayed within Canada, and 38% went through the U.S.
>>>
>>> As has been pointed out, Canada has been building IXPs…  Just not as
>>> fast as the rest of the world has.  They’re behind the global average
>>> growth rate, and behind the U.S. growth rate, which is why the problem is
>>> getting worse.  Bandwidth costs are falling faster elsewhere, so they’re
>>> importing more foreign bandwidth.
>>>
>>> -Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Keenan Tims  wrote:
> While they do practice peering protectionism and only purchase transit out of 
> country, the situation is not *quite* so bad that all traffic round-trips 
> through the US.

No, not all, 64%.  By comparison, only 0.27% of intra-US traffic goes through 
Canada.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Clayton Zekelman]

OK, Maybe I was a bit overly dramatic.  One of the big 3 peered with 
us in a US location, but refused to peer in Canada.


I can't recall if we actually did specifically ask Rogers at one 
point or not.  I know we haven't asked recently.



At 08:41 PM 08/08/2017, Bill Woodcock wrote:


> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Clayton Zekelman  wrote:
>
>
>
> With the peering policies of the major Canadian ISPs, you're 
virtually guaranteed to hairpin through the US on most paths.

>
> Robellus (Rogers, Bell & Telus) will peer with you at any of 
their major Canadian peering points, such as NYC, Chicago or LA.


To be fair, Rogers does peer in Toronto.  Along with New York, 
Chicago, Seattle, and Ashburn.


-Bill







--

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

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

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Dave Cohen]

It seems to me the original question was asking about it more from a legal 
perspective, in other words does Canadian traffic have to stay in Canada. IANAL 
(or a Canadian), but the answer is "mostly, no, especially as related to 
publicly routed traffic" as should be evidenced based on what's already been 
discussed here. In other words, there is restricted traffic but unless you're 
making a play for MAN/WAN type service on owned infrastructure, those 
requirements are unlikely to arise. 

To support the macro point, there is some big-boy level peering in Toronto but 
not really much else outside that, but there are plenty of routes that don't 
cross the border if you don't have to jump networks to your destination, for 
example going to an AWS on ramp in Canada using a native partner network, 
especially in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. 

Dave Cohen
craetd...@gmail.com

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>charset=us-ascii
> 
> 
>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Clayton Zekelman  wrote:
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> With the peering policies of the major Canadian ISPs, you're virtually =
> guaranteed to hairpin through the US on most paths.
>> =20
>> Robellus (Rogers, Bell & Telus) will peer with you at any of their =
> major Canadian peering points, such as NYC, Chicago or LA.
> 
> To be fair, Rogers does peer in Toronto.  Along with New York, Chicago, =
> Seattle, and Ashburn.
> 
>-Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>filename=signature.asc
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
>name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJZilooAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+HgNsQAIPkgL/lVL/j1sdPyiyQsepE
> TCyHm4bsAq6m085kXoRj/IWn+KsVwmAq8ZGKnKEAiozmrSeyxAa2vmw5Kfs57l1/
> crBima+EOOlPT4VcD7tv9e8yEiVdjDuMp5tnLI238qCfIlHeHRtuU7CClzWPv6uD
> 3jCNIBEcScrLWz37Ofm/D2AkYRAhhK5H8I417Y/39TH4MIoIKFsGbvWwpl30Fv8r
> 5phO0MrTP6mB8niHne6HTxyMED5TGQpVEL2Qgh6qgaI9vzAs5/47KwwY57tZpxaL
> v9GjkPJ4Ql7QVWbsSkXnFmHxXzqaHXAfg8SR+gsCN42Jyn99AIyAAwdALhqc4RuZ
> ydi+lOlEutAMndA01CnrI81Eu/RpWrN+q/vi37W2rb6EPTPcCz2196JDlpC6VVW6
> tJOMNuP6Pa/ee52Cxu6RWwA4QZ6QVIT9fbDcRFXTGNuohwP8XVpujcsPLChzsFXA
> Y2nt+TliL697lTZNbTZEzQ0f9w2rpCDpcLjTMCR8MNWZ4MjQHL3eDgO5ZIWHPTQf
> ggR1Dz2EhPSXXZdvN7KPh1q9rhRb2VUPSn3EeEDo2TjgUVeUlunsDg/ILpf8lxUY
> RTsXe5Nky7YqXKDG4HSlLF3R/RtfaVqKJfjljYg351cs40rzivzjD2TJ8r35RQeW
> btKUtEvrcU28g15nOhLG
> =MTUG
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_8DA28412-F6D0-43D8-A90F-5E151E54468E--
> 

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Keenan Tims]

On 2017-08-08 17:10, Bill Woodcock wrote:

No.  In fact, Bell Canada / Bell Aliant and Telus guarantee that you_will_  go 
through Chicago, Seattle, New York, or Ashburn, since none of them peer 
anywhere in Canada at all.


The major national networks (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw, Zayo/Allstream) 
do peer with each other and some other large / old Canadian networks 
(e.g. MTS, SaskTel, Peer1) within Canada. While they do practice peering 
protectionism and only purchase transit out of country, the situation is 
not *quite* so bad that all traffic round-trips through the US.


Of course if neither side of the conversation has at least one of those 
major networks as a transit upstream - which is most of the eyeballs and 
most of the important Canadian content - you'll see that hop through 
Chicago or Seattle (or worse). Which is exactly the way they like it.


Keenan

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Clayton Zekelman  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> With the peering policies of the major Canadian ISPs, you're virtually 
> guaranteed to hairpin through the US on most paths.
> 
> Robellus (Rogers, Bell & Telus) will peer with you at any of their major 
> Canadian peering points, such as NYC, Chicago or LA.

To be fair, Rogers does peer in Toronto.  Along with New York, Chicago, 
Seattle, and Ashburn.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Clayton Zekelman]

With the peering policies of the major Canadian ISPs, you're 
virtually guaranteed to hairpin through the US on most paths.


Robellus (Rogers, Bell & Telus) will peer with you at any of their 
major Canadian peering points, such as NYC, Chicago or LA.




At 10:01 AM 20/07/2017, Hiers, David wrote:

Hi,
We're looking to extend some services into Canada.  While our 
lawyers dig into it, I thought that I'd ask the hive mind about 
border restrictions.


For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing 
between Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to 
Montreal, do you have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, 
say, Syracuse, New York?


I'm asking network operators about packet routing; data storage is a 
very different matter, of course.


Thanks,

David

--
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of 
the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and 
confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended 
recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in 
error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the 
message and any attachments from your system.


--

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

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

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Stephen Fulton]

TR,

MTS Allstream is no longer a combined entity.  MTS was purchased by Bell 
Canada and Allstream was purchased by Zayo.


-- Stephen

On 2017-08-08 8:19 PM, TR Shaw wrote:

Bill,

What does Bell buying MTS do? Does it change your statement or will the MTS 
portion of Bell still peer locally?

Tom


On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:



On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Hiers, David  wrote:
For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing between Canada 
and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to Montreal, do you have to 
guarantee that the path cannot go through, say, Syracuse, New York?


No.  In fact, Bell Canada / Bell Aliant and Telus guarantee that you _will_ go 
through Chicago, Seattle, New York, or Ashburn, since none of them peer 
anywhere in Canada at all.

Last I checked (November of last year) the best-connected commercial networks 
(i.e. not CANARIE) in Canada were Hurricane Electric, MTS Allstream, Primus, 
and Zip Telecom, all of which peer at three or more Canadian IXes.  So, they’re 
capable of keeping traffic in Canada so long as the other end isn’t on Bell or 
Telus, which only sell U.S. bandwidth to Canadians.

In November, only 27% of intra-Canadian routes stayed within Canada; 64% went 
through the U.S.  That’s way worse than five years ago, when 60% stayed within 
Canada, and 38% went through the U.S.

As has been pointed out, Canada has been building IXPs…  Just not as fast as 
the rest of the world has.  They’re behind the global average growth rate, and 
behind the U.S. growth rate, which is why the problem is getting worse.  
Bandwidth costs are falling faster elsewhere, so they’re importing more foreign 
bandwidth.

-Bill

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:19 PM, TR Shaw  wrote:
> 
> Bill,
> 
> What does Bell buying MTS do? Does it change your statement or will the MTS 
> portion of Bell still peer locally?

I’d have to go back and look at the actual ASNs in our analysis.  I think what 
we called “MTS Allstream” in the chart is actually the Zayo-owned Allstream, 
not the Bell-owned Bell MTS.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[TR Shaw]

Bill,

What does Bell buying MTS do? Does it change your statement or will the MTS 
portion of Bell still peer locally?

Tom

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Hiers, David  wrote:
>> For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing between 
>> Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to Montreal, do you 
>> have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, say, Syracuse, New York?
> 
> No.  In fact, Bell Canada / Bell Aliant and Telus guarantee that you _will_ 
> go through Chicago, Seattle, New York, or Ashburn, since none of them peer 
> anywhere in Canada at all.
> 
> Last I checked (November of last year) the best-connected commercial networks 
> (i.e. not CANARIE) in Canada were Hurricane Electric, MTS Allstream, Primus, 
> and Zip Telecom, all of which peer at three or more Canadian IXes.  So, 
> they’re capable of keeping traffic in Canada so long as the other end isn’t 
> on Bell or Telus, which only sell U.S. bandwidth to Canadians.
> 
> In November, only 27% of intra-Canadian routes stayed within Canada; 64% went 
> through the U.S.  That’s way worse than five years ago, when 60% stayed 
> within Canada, and 38% went through the U.S.
> 
> As has been pointed out, Canada has been building IXPs…  Just not as fast as 
> the rest of the world has.  They’re behind the global average growth rate, 
> and behind the U.S. growth rate, which is why the problem is getting worse.  
> Bandwidth costs are falling faster elsewhere, so they’re importing more 
> foreign bandwidth.
> 
>-Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Hiers, David  wrote:
> For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing between 
> Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to Montreal, do you 
> have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, say, Syracuse, New York?

No.  In fact, Bell Canada / Bell Aliant and Telus guarantee that you _will_ go 
through Chicago, Seattle, New York, or Ashburn, since none of them peer 
anywhere in Canada at all.

Last I checked (November of last year) the best-connected commercial networks 
(i.e. not CANARIE) in Canada were Hurricane Electric, MTS Allstream, Primus, 
and Zip Telecom, all of which peer at three or more Canadian IXes.  So, they’re 
capable of keeping traffic in Canada so long as the other end isn’t on Bell or 
Telus, which only sell U.S. bandwidth to Canadians.

In November, only 27% of intra-Canadian routes stayed within Canada; 64% went 
through the U.S.  That’s way worse than five years ago, when 60% stayed within 
Canada, and 38% went through the U.S.

As has been pointed out, Canada has been building IXPs…  Just not as fast as 
the rest of the world has.  They’re behind the global average growth rate, and 
behind the U.S. growth rate, which is why the problem is getting worse.  
Bandwidth costs are falling faster elsewhere, so they’re importing more foreign 
bandwidth.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 20/07/2017, Hiers, David  wrote:
> Hi,
> We're looking to extend some services into Canada.  While our lawyers dig
> into it, I thought that I'd ask the hive mind about border restrictions.
>
> For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing between
> Canada and the US?  IOW, if you are routing from Toronto to Montreal, do you
> have to guarantee that the path cannot go through, say, Syracuse, New York?

Guarantee to whom?

Back a few years ago when I looked into it, most of the traffic within
Canada went through the US, e.g., since Bell didn't want to peer with
anyone in Canada, you'd go something like YYZ - ORD - YYZ, clearly
visible through the traceroute.

Possibly somewhat better nowadays — there's been quite a few new IX
POPs that popped up — but I doubt the scenario is a thing of the past.

P.S.  Just for the giggles — checked http://lg.he.net/ routing from
core1.tor1.he.net to www.bell.ca — still goes through Chicago, to
Montreal, from Toronto. :-)  Going straight to Montreal,
core1.ymq1.he.net, will route you to www.bell.ca (still in Montreal)
through the peering at NYC.

P.P.S.  In other words — if someone wants guarantees, they better
explicitly ask you for it.

Cheers,
Constantine.
http://cm.su/