RE: Operational impact of depeering

["Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan () verisign com>]

--
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
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote:
>
> > > 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  
> > Networks
> > Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick,  
> > 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
>
> Here's one way of looking at it:
> (copied below b/c the list is not publicly archived)
>
> TV
>
> > From: Tom Vest <tvest () pch net>
> > Date: October 8, 2005 6:00:32 PM EDT
> > To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM- 
> > L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
> > Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] [ misc fyi ] internet "peering" breaking  
> > down (fwd)
> >
> > Okay now that the flap is over and I have a few minutes to spare,  
> > 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)  
> > originated the equivalent of  1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the  
> > "ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call  
> > the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated  
> > the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05%  
> > 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- 
> > snapshot-2005-10-01-0000.dat.bz2.
> >
> > In an RFC 1930/2270 compliant world, 99% of networks downstream of  
> > either disputant have other, unaffected upstreams, so presumably  
> > they don't lose reachability to anyone.
> >
> > Maybe there are 1b Internet users worldwide, and maybe they are  
> > distributed roughly in proportion to the distribution of Internet  
> > production. So maybe 5% of the world population as 
> affected by the  
> > 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. 
You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for
them being old school. Cogent is not old school.

-M<