On 6/09/16, 16:40, "Tim Hoffman" <tim@hoffman.net.nz> wrote:
Hey Sid,
I have less concerns with the intermediate state, and more concern with the idea of permanently leaving the IX in an inconsistent state. As we all know, networks need to operate in predictable and understood manners. Having an IX's route servers behave in a
different manner depending on the perspective you look at it from is not predictable or easily understandable. This is certainly not a behavior I have ever seen on the multitude of IXs we participate in worldwide, or on any of the IXs in the many locations
we are considering peering at as we expand our global footprint.
It's good that Citylink consults their customers prior to making changes. This is the right thing to do, and while while I don't see this blocking any migration, I would note that this would be a terrible state to leave it in permanently; thus again my question
- do we have an 'end date' for this half-done state that is being proposed? Or even an intention to at some point finish this migration to move towards a single, consistent, state? Running a good service that attracts international content providers and the
few critical networks in New Zealand doesn't always mean pleasing every odd customer demand.
Finally, to your point, I am happy for you to cite my concerns to any of your members.
Thanks,
Tim
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Sid Jones <sid.jones@citylink.co.nz> wrote:
Still pretty busy here after the office move so this reply is probably going to be brief.
I'll try and address your question regarding the inconsistency introduced but can you (where you includes NZIX members on NZNOG) please expand on why you think the proposed staggered rollout will cause you issues.
I'm happy to be educated and I'm also happy to told where I'm wrong.
We'd like to get any solution right for as many of our IX-members as possible but if the current proposed solution is going to cause substantial issues then we'll pull back on any changes and remain with the status quo until we can :-
contact all our members/participants
fully explain the situation and the desire and drivers for change
reaffirm with the members/participants that they wish to proceed with the change
negotiate a timeframe and set window to suit all the various change controls before we make the change
All of that will unfortunately mean a delay, a delay caused by us trying to do the right thing for all of our members.
I note I've not really answered the direct question but I hope that helps to explain where we're coming from.
If we do come up with a list of show-stoppers and have to call a pause to the proposed staggered implementation, I'd like to be able to use these as examples to the NZIX members. Can I assume I can do so with the appropriate citation?
On 5/09/16, 20:34, "Tim Hoffman" <tim@hoffman.net.nz> wrote:
Citylink - can you reply to confirm if you are planning to permanently leave your service in an inconsistent state?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2016, at 8:44 PM, Tim Hoffman <tim@hoffman.net.nz> wrote:
Confirming - this will be to ask you to remove the ASN as the asking party receives the route, not for routes that the asking party is sending to the route servers?
Also, will there be a time limit at which point all connections are forced to move to this new method, or will there be an indefinite state of transition?
Cheers,
Tim
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Sid Jones <sid.jones@citylink.co.nz> wrote:
Just to let you all know we���ve not forgotten about this issue.
We have made some progress - we've got internal approval through to allow us to make the required changes to the IX.
We've (internally) agreed that the changes will be made as opt-in rather than as opt-out and that future installs will default to not adding the IX AS [at least on the APE, WIX, CHIX and DPE].
e.g. You'll need to ask us to make the changes to remove our AS so we have as few surprises as possible.
We've still got a few modifications to make to internal systems before we can roll out the changes and we're currently at the pointy end of a complete office relocation that's taking up a bit of time. We're expecting to make a start on changes to participants
towards the end of next month.
Formal notification will be sent to the registered addresses for all current participants sometime after the dust settles on the office move ��� it shouldn't be too far away. That notification will contain further details on when and how to request the change
etc.
On 1/08/16, 17:04, "nznog-bounces@list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces@list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of
nznog@daork.net> 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 <richardn@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Equally, those unaware of the necessity are those most unlikely to see a wall of shame...
>
>
> On 1/08/16 4:55 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
>> 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@list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces@list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Dave Mill
>>> Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 8:51 a.m.
>>> To: Daniel Griggs <daniel@nzrs.net.nz>
>>> Cc: nznog@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 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@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 <daniel@nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel@nzrs.net.nz>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds entirely reasonable.
>>>
>>> 100% of people in this thread support this idea.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Griggs
>>> daniel@nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel@nzrs.net.nz>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog@uuuuuu.net<mailto:nznog@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@list.waikato.ac.nz
>>
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
>
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog