Re: [nznog] AS paths from NZIX route servers

31 Jul 2016

      I would also note that for some of the smaller folks, watching the falling
price of retail internet connectivity from ISPs (per Mbit) while seeing no
change at all in the price of a WIX or APE port, peering may not make sense
any longer.

For these folks, if there is not a significant cost advantage, transit is,
simpler, cheaper to run, and doesn't have as much chance of odd routing
problems. Perhaps if they cannot bring the technical expertise to the table
to be able to maintain an IX connection, it's time to evaluate the TCO of
doing it properly or not doing it at all and going to an ISP for all their
connectivity needs...

https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/Temkin_The_Real_Cost.pdf is some
interesting reading, and is causing a bit of discussion over this side of
the world :).

What's the difference in price per 10G between the IX providers in NZ these
days anyway?

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Nathan Ward  wrote:
...
Hi,
This is true - people will need to change their config.
I am with Tim, however, that we should have a consistent state to get to,
and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say there is a month from today for
people to get there, then update config for everyone.
In theory, CityLink could do some test prefixes - advertise some prefix
with an different first AS than the IX AS, then go ping something in the
ISP from both a “normal” prefix, and from the test prefix, and look for
inconsistency, then reach out and say “put this config in”.
--
Nathan Ward
On 1/08/2016, at 17:32, Chris Jones  wrote:
From a “least-surprise” prospective, dropping the IX AS will need peers to
set their vendor’s equivalent of “no bgp enforce-first-as” on their
IX-facing edge router(s).  Having the ability to still send the IX AS to
peers on a peer-by-peer basis might help stop those guys completely falling
off the AS
Chris
On 1 Aug 2016, at 3:29 PM, Tim Hoffman  wrote:
What's the value on doing this on a per-peer basis, or allowing any peer
to having a differing experience?
This would create some level of inconsistency and operational confusion
IMHO, particularly given that inserting the IX AS anywhere is far from the
standard globally...
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Nathan Ward  wrote:
...
..and are the least likely to have traffic volumes worth worrying about.
The big content providers are on this list, as are the big eyeballs RS
peers. A few weeks should be enough notice I think, I stand in support of
2016-8-31.
--
Nathan Ward
...
On 1/08/2016, at 16:58, Richard Nelson  wrote:
Equally, those unaware of the necessity are those most unlikely to see
a wall of shame...
...
The problem is that, few though they may be, the systems that will
need to
opt out are the ones mostly likely to be run by people who are unaware
of
that necessity.
Rather, simply set a flag day -- say 1/10/2016 -- and on that date
switch
over everyone who opts in between now and then. From 1/9 start a "wall
of
shame" for those who haven't opted in...
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016, Simon Allard wrote:
...
HI Dave
Sounds good to me. It will certainly change traffic levels, as
carriers with other IX’s will be being preferred  due to the shorter path.
I would however like to see Opt-Out rather than Opt-in, since it’s a
corrective fix to bring APE/WIX inline with IX best practise.
From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:
nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Dave Mill
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 8:51 a.m.
To: Daniel Griggs 
Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] AS paths from NZIX route servers
Would there be any advantage to having a "flag day" for this where
On 1/08/16 4:55 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
the people that opt in to having the RS AS removed from the path will all
have it removed on the same day? And then we could all co-ordinate here on
any issues that arise?
...
...
Cheers
Dave
Simon Allard | Development & Operations Manager
D: +64 9 550 2790E: Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz
M: +64 20 1000 790W: vocus.co.nz
A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs 
mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
...
Sounds entirely reasonable.
100% of people in this thread support this idea.
--
Daniel Griggs
daniel(a)nzrs.net.nzmailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones 
nznog(a)uuuuuu.net>> wrote:
...
That obviously will require a little more work on our behalf,
indications here of interest would help with that. Input welcomed.
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog