[195458] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Cohen)
Wed Aug 9 11:09:54 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Dave Cohen <craetdave@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB69EHh10F0VcpZR+-wK1t3kkGHcf1HhhtetZr+FF12FmBeTjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:09:48 -0400
To: Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Sorta, kinda. The various ASs operated by Zayo are more interconnected than t=
hat description would imply. The traditional mode of operation on an "acquir=
ed AS" has been to turn down any upstream transit as quickly as contractuall=
y possible and upgrade NNI capacity between that AS and 6461 to compensate. O=
ver time, legacy devices are overbuilt or replaced with ones directly on 646=
1. The net-net of it is that most traffic will end up egressing to other pro=
viders via 6461's peering after a fairly short period, although this isn't u=
niversally true, especially for "local" traffic (e.g. traffic originating on=
the Neo AS staying in France, etc.).=20
Dave Cohen
craetdave@gmail.com
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:13 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> It is worth noting, however, that the former AllStream ASN (formerly AT&T
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Fulton <sf@lists.esoteric.ca> wro=
te:
>>=20
>> TR,
>>=20
>> MTS Allstream is no longer a combined entity. MTS was purchased by Bell
>> Canada and Allstream was purchased by Zayo.
>>=20
>> -- Stephen
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On 2017-08-08 8:19 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Bill,
>>>=20
>>> What does Bell buying MTS do? Does it change your statement or will the
>>> MTS portion of Bell still peer locally?
>>>=20
>>> Tom
>>>=20
>>>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Hiers, David <David.Hiers@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, sa=
y,
>>>>> Syracuse, New York?
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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=E2=80=99re capable of keeping traffic in Canad=
a so long as
>>>> the other end isn=E2=80=99t on Bell or Telus, which only sell U.S. band=
width to
>>>> Canadians.
>>>>=20
>>>> In November, only 27% of intra-Canadian routes stayed within Canada; 64=
%
>>>> went through the U.S. That=E2=80=99s way worse than five years ago, wh=
en 60%
>>>> stayed within Canada, and 38% went through the U.S.
>>>>=20
>>>> As has been pointed out, Canada has been building IXPs=E2=80=A6 Just n=
ot as
>>>> fast as the rest of the world has. They=E2=80=99re behind the global a=
verage
>>>> growth rate, and behind the U.S. growth rate, which is why the problem i=
s
>>>> getting worse. Bandwidth costs are falling faster elsewhere, so they=E2=
=80=99re
>>>> importing more foreign bandwidth.
>>>>=20
>>>> -Bill
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
