[85434] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Operational impact of depeering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hannigan, Martin)
Mon Oct 10 11:03:49 2005
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:02:08 -0400
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
To: "Tom Vest" <tvest@pch.net>,
"Nanog Mailing list" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure
hannigan@verisign.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Tom Vest
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:46 AM
> To: Nanog Mailing list
> Cc: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
> Subject: Re: Operational impact of depeering
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Oct 10, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
>=20
> >> It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the
> >> operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or
> >> contractual ramifications.
> >
> >
> >> Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review
> >> this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month?
> >
> > Aside from anything else, there is this interesting topic
> > on the agenda:
> > Abstract: NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering =20
> > Networks
> > Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick, =20
> > Sonic.net
> >
> > Seems to me that a discussion of traffic analysis could
> > handle a slide or two on actual impacts of this depeering.
> >
> > --Michael Dillon
>=20
> Here's one way of looking at it:
> (copied below b/c the list is not publicly archived)
>=20
> TV
>=20
> > From: Tom Vest <tvest@pch.net>
> > Date: October 8, 2005 6:00:32 PM EDT
> > To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-=20
> > L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
> > Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] [ misc fyi ] internet "peering" breaking =20
> > down (fwd)
> >
> > Okay now that the flap is over and I have a few minutes to spare, =20
> > I'll bite.
> >
> > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Peter R. wrote:
> >
> >> Your passionate response deserves a response:
> >>
> >> It's not very small indeed.
> >
> > Compared to what?
> >
> > On 10/1/05, Cogent's network (AS174 -- a very old network) =20
> > originated the equivalent of 1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the =20
> > "ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call =20
> > the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated =20
> > the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05% =20
> > at that point in time.
> >
> > Note: numbers are derived from the Route Views archive:
> > http://archive.routeviews.org/oix-route-views/2005.10/oix-full-=20
> > snapshot-2005-10-01-0000.dat.bz2.
> >
> > In an RFC 1930/2270 compliant world, 99% of networks downstream of =20
> > either disputant have other, unaffected upstreams, so presumably =20
> > they don't lose reachability to anyone.
> >
> > Maybe there are 1b Internet users worldwide, and maybe they are =20
> > distributed roughly in proportion to the distribution of Internet =20
> > production. So maybe 5% of the world population as=20
> affected by the =20
> > dispute -- roughly 5m users.
> >
Anti-Level(3)? The only fact in this was the route view
count, and even that could be wrong. Not a very fair
comparison, especially to make to regulatory people who
may not know better.
AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition.=20
You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for
them being old school. Cogent is not old school.
-M<
