Re: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New , Zealand
Hey yawl. On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Joe Abley wrote:
Well, it's been a while, and there hasn't been much comment on this. Here we go, then: a proposal. Feel free to shoot me down in flames if this doesn't sit happily with anybody else :)
1. Establish a second emulated LAN on CityLink for BGP peering between cooperating network operators. This will consist of a series of bilateral agreements between individual network operators. No customers should connect to ISPs over this network - this will be a "clean" IP-only network.
While I appreciate that the ISP's primary desire is an interconnect to exchange data with their "peers" (in the loosest sense of the word) on a national basis, I would really like to see an exchange set up in Wellington that also allowed any local organisation to peer on the WIX for *local* traffic. Specifically, the shared ethernet that the ISP's are attached to in Wellington has some 50 other organisations on ir, most at 10Mb/s, some at 100Mb/s. On a daily basis we get the "I'm sending data to some other user of Citylink, and it's really slow" grumble, generally because their traffic is going via Waikato, or Auckland, or wherever. Peering between the ISP's should fix most of these problems. Increasingly, however, we're hearing "we're a customer of ISP X, we're sending data to another customer of ISP X, and performance is still rotten", which peering won't necessarily fix, because it isn't an inter ISP issue. With the advent of more 100Mb/s+ connections, and the increasing desire of local organisations to use Citylink to move massive amounts (A2 full colour spreads, for eg) of data between themselves, this situation isn't likely to improve. Therefore it seems desirable that Citylink attached organisations be able to communicate amongst themselves, without needing to pass through an ISP's router. So, while the ISP's do need a bilateral peering point where individual operators can choose whether to (in effect) carry other ISP's data on their national network, I would like to see a tandem system implemented where local Citylink users can share routes for locally attached networks amongst themselves. I'd also observe that VLAN's aren't (yet) a product of Citylink, (although our current backbone switches do support them), and probably won't be until somebody asks. So it behooves the ISP's concerned to get a request into Richard and Alan so that they can get the product development wheels in motion.
2. To make (1) as smooth as possible, individual operators should make efforts to install up-to-date route entries and associated policy into the Merit (Route Arbiter) routing registry. This will also help with a similar operation on NZIX.
Citylink are/can provide hardware to make a local RA registry a reality, which is presumably necessary if non AS numbered entities want to join the IX?
3. The Wellington peering network will be called "WIX". ISOCNZ have reserved wix.net.nz for this purpose. NetLink have offered to keep the zone fed and watered; any operator should be able to perform zone transfers for wix.net.nz and NS records for that operators nameserver will be added by rough concensus (i.e. as long as the nameserver in question seems to be up most of the time :)
4. A class C network will be obtained from ISI by ISOCNZ. This costs US$500. ISOCNZ will bill a proportion of this amount to all the initial participants in WIX. The corresponding in-addr.arpa zone will be run by NetLink on behalf of the peering community, in much the same way as wix.net.nz.
With a bit of arm twisting, I could probably squeeze a couple of unused pre-CIDR Class C's out of WCC - would that be a useful/cheaper alternative? Citylink would (I imagine) also be happy to act as a neutral party for DNS maintenance or ISI billing. Cheers Si Simon Blake simon(a)citylink.co.nz +64 25 300 825 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Simon Blake wrote:
1. Establish a second emulated LAN on CityLink for BGP peering between cooperating network operators. This will consist of a series of bilateral agreements between individual network operators. No customers should connect to ISPs over this network - this will be a "clean" IP-only network.
While I appreciate that the ISP's primary desire is an interconnect to exchange data with their "peers" (in the loosest sense of the word) on a national basis, I would really like to see an exchange set up in Wellington that also allowed any local organisation to peer on the WIX for *local* traffic.
I think that makes a lot of sense as well, although I am slightly disturbed by reports of broadcast IPX, Appletalk and NetBEUI traffic flowing helter-skelter over the current emulated LAN :) There is a technical problem surrounding the use of the current eLAN for BGP peering. ISPs who exchange routes using BGP over WIX will have route objects tagged within their interior BGP process with a next-hop address from network 10.0.0.0/8, since that is the addressing scheme used across the customer-access eLAN. This presents potential problems (ppp :) since it presupposes that the 10.0.0.0/8 network is carried by each ISP's interior routing protocol which CLEAR for one is not able to do cleanly (10 is used for private CLEAR networks). We could continue to use the existing eLAN with a globally-unique address range, but that would involve multiple ARPs per router interface across the network. In my experience networks which layer multiple subnet addressing schemes across the same broadcast network are almost always messy and fraught with problems. YMMV :)
With the advent of more 100Mb/s+ connections, and the increasing desire of local organisations to use Citylink to move massive amounts (A2 full colour spreads, for eg) of data between themselves, this situation isn't likely to improve. Therefore it seems desirable that Citylink attached organisations be able to communicate amongst themselves, without needing to pass through an ISP's router.
I think this is an admirable goal, but bear in mind that customers' packets travel through a customers' router before they hit WIX anyway - is an ISPs router likely to be a bigger bottleneck than that?
So, while the ISP's do need a bilateral peering point where individual operators can choose whether to (in effect) carry other ISP's data on their national network, I would like to see a tandem system implemented where local Citylink users can share routes for locally attached networks amongst themselves.
Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post; I was putting forward the idea that each peering ISP would maintain two connections to Citylink eLANs - one for customer access, one for peering. And by ISP I mean "anybody who is keen to persue BGP peering with other network operators in NZ". I just assume that most of these are likely to be ISPs. As far as customers are concerned everything would work as it does now, since I am not proposing any changes to the way that the CityLink managed IP service works.
I'd also observe that VLAN's aren't (yet) a product of Citylink, (although our current backbone switches do support them), and probably won't be until somebody asks. So it behooves the ISP's concerned to get a request into Richard and Alan so that they can get the product development wheels in motion.
2. To make (1) as smooth as possible, individual operators should make efforts to install up-to-date route entries and associated policy into the Merit (Route Arbiter) routing registry. This will also help with a similar operation on NZIX.
Citylink are/can provide hardware to make a local RA registry a reality, which is presumably necessary if non AS numbered entities want to join the IX?
The consensus seems to be that an additional route arbiter database doesn't really add any value - it makes more sense for WIX-peering ISPs to use the Merit RADB in Michigan. This avoids repeated records in national and global route registries which, in practice, will always differ to some degree. All peering partners will need AS numbers in order to peer using BGP. AS numbers cost US$500 setup and then US$50/year from APNIC (for non-members - they are available free to members). I would have thought this was within the financial scope of all NZ ISPs who are not APNIC members. Customers who use an ISP via CityLink do not need to peer, as their provider is effectively doing it for them. However, a customer who wanted service from more than one ISP for backup purposes could BGP-peer with the ISPs concerned exactly as it is proposed ISPs do between each other. A locally-run route server (which draws its policy from the Merit RADB) might make sense if we find a large number of ISPs wanting to peer; however, if the number of peering ISPs/customers is low (say, below 10) then I think it's not really worth the trouble.
4. A class C network will be obtained from ISI by ISOCNZ. This costs US$500. ISOCNZ will bill a proportion of this amount to all the initial participants in WIX. The corresponding in-addr.arpa zone will be run by NetLink on behalf of the peering community, in much the same way as wix.net.nz.
With a bit of arm twisting, I could probably squeeze a couple of unused pre-CIDR Class C's out of WCC - would that be a useful/cheaper alternative? Citylink would (I imagine) also be happy to act as a neutral party for DNS maintenance or ISI billing.
Bear in mind that any ISP may source packets from an address on this
subnet - so if the Cs you are thinking of are advertised as part of a
supernet (at WCC's expense) you will potentially be carrying ISPs traffic
globally.
If the Cs are not part of larger supernet routes, then you should be fine.
Could you give a firm indication on whether a non-globally-advertised WCC
class C could be made available, or whether WCC is keen to administer the
payment for an ISI-supplied class C network?
Joe
--
Joe Abley
On Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 12:47:33PM +1200, Joe Abley wibbled:
This presents potential problems (ppp :) since it presupposes that the 10.0.0.0/8 network is carried by each ISP's interior routing protocol which CLEAR for one is not able to do cleanly (10 is used for private CLEAR networks).
I think pretty much everyone has 10.0.0.0/8 or 192.168.0.0/16 (or part thereof) in use somewhere on their networks. Generally though, I don't find 172.16.0.0/12 in use anywhere, so it is possible that could be used. (See rfc1918). That said, I think where possible, its worth going to some effort to prevent these private numbers from being used externally by an 'net connected organisation. I know a couple of people are currently using 192.168 number for router interfaces and its a bit of a pain sometimes. -Chris --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
Generally though, I don't find 172.16.0.0/12 in use anywhere, so it is possible that could be used. (See rfc1918).
Hmm :) I have a problem with 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16. We are using bits of all of them.
That said, I think where possible, its worth going to some effort to prevent these private numbers from being used externally by an 'net connected organisation. I know a couple of people are currently using 192.168 number for router interfaces and its a bit of a pain sometimes.
Agreed. My opinion is that any bit of network that is shared by two
completely disparate organisations should not use rfc1918 address space.
This is especially true when you have lots of people sharing the network,
and you have no idea where it is going to lead in the future.
Joe
--
Joe Abley
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Joe Abley wrote:
Agreed. My opinion is that any bit of network that is shared by two completely disparate organisations should not use rfc1918 address space. This is especially true when you have lots of people sharing the network, and you have no idea where it is going to lead in the future.
Well it could be worse, you could have a number of consultants assigning 192.x.x.x as private address space in a town that may or may not begin with W.... But that's NT consultants for you...... Cheers, Sid -- Sid Jones Loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, sjones(a)netlink.co.nz bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls. 0800 655 465 -British Food Critic AA Gill on the Welsh --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Well it could be worse, you could have a number of consultants assigning 192.x.x.x as private address space in a town that may or may not begin with W.... But that's NT consultants for you......
Cheers, Sid
Yeah it could be worse - You could have a nationwide ISP allocating space out of 192.168/24 or 10/8 for their VPN solution. Dean --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Yeah it could be worse - You could have a nationwide ISP allocating space out of 192.168/24 or 10/8 for their VPN solution.
Your point being... ?? That APNIC will allocate unique address space for unconnected networks? -Jamie --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Jamie Clark wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Yeah it could be worse - You could have a nationwide ISP allocating space out of 192.168/24 or 10/8 for their VPN solution.
Your point being... ?? That APNIC will allocate unique address space for unconnected networks?
They will, actually - as long as there is good reason for the address
space being globally unqiue.
Anyway, I think Dean was just taking the opportunity to snipe at Xtra :)
Joe
--
Joe Abley
Anyway, I think Dean was just taking the opportunity to snipe at Xtra :)
You may very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment =) Dean -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton BSC(Compsci) | email: dean.pemberton(a)natlib.govt.nz| Datacommunications Analyst |cphone: +64-21-633-434 | National Library of NZ |All opinions contained within this | PGP key avail from keyserver |email are purely my own. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Yeah it could be worse - You could have a nationwide ISP allocating space out of 192.168/24 or 10/8 for their VPN solution.
Your point being... ?? That APNIC will allocate unique address space for unconnected networks?
Nope - Not my point at all. I do not disagree with ISP's using rfc1918 addresses for this type of thing. In fact it is probabily one of the best ways of doing it (I would like to have the option of using my OWN numbers though). The issue that I was raising was similar to the one raised by others on the list. Whenever you have multiple organisations sharing a network that uses rfc1918 numbers, there is a chance that they will conflict with the ones that you are running already internally. If you have some say in which ones are allocated (like being able to see a list of availible ones) then the problem deminishes, but there is still likely to be an overlap somewhere. That was my point, nothing more, nothing less... It's not a bad solution I'd just like to see a bit more flexibility. Dean -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton BSC(Compsci) | email: dean.pemberton(a)natlib.govt.nz| Datacommunications Analyst |cphone: +64-21-633-434 | National Library of NZ |All opinions contained within this | PGP key avail from keyserver |email are purely my own. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Your point being... ?? That APNIC will allocate unique address space for unconnected networks?
Nope - Not my point at all.
OK, I took your message the wrong way.
I do not disagree with ISP's using rfc1918 addresses for this type of thing. In fact it is probabily one of the best ways of doing it (I would like to have the option of using my OWN numbers though). The issue that I was raising was similar to the one raised by others on the list. Whenever you have multiple organisations sharing a network that uses rfc1918 numbers, there is a chance that they will conflict with the ones that you are running already internally.
Agreed. The notion of locally-unique address space would have some application in this respect - perhaps even with some kind of registry - but that's probably taking the idea too far. Maybe we will end up with something like that when we get stuck between full allocation of IPv4 addresses and the threat of IPv6. Who knows? -Jamie --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Jamie Clark wrote:
Agreed. The notion of locally-unique address space would have some application in this respect - perhaps even with some kind of registry - but that's probably taking the idea too far. Maybe we will end up with something like that when we get stuck between full allocation of IPv4 addresses and the threat of IPv6. Who knows?
The idea of locally-unique address space certainly appeals but I don't believe it should come from the rfc 1918 space. That's *private* address space - Citylink isn't private. If we're going to start running a complex system on Citylink then someone will need to manage the address space, allocation of private AS numbers, DNS for the locally-unique address space etc. That looks to me like a set of services that should be provided by Citylink themselves. -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.co.nz Tel: +64 4 916 5312 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand PGP public key: http://www.pgp.com/keyserver/pks-lookup.cgi -- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
The idea of locally-unique address space certainly appeals but I don't believe it should come from the rfc 1918 space. That's *private* address space - Citylink isn't private.
If we're going to start running a complex system on Citylink then someone will need to manage the address space, allocation of private AS numbers, DNS for the locally-unique address space etc. That looks to me like a set of services that should be provided by Citylink themselves.
Agreed. It does however seem that this is only viable if we all choose to participate in ONE exchange on Citylink. CNHL might not be too keen to administer multiple exchanges over Citylink. Not that I speak for them though - Simon? While we are on the subject though, where did that discussion lead? Joe put forward the idea of cranking the ISP (what ever that means) IX on a separate set of fibre's. How does everyone else feel about this. I presume that this means having to maintain two citylink connections if you have clients on the main LAN? Dean -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton BSC(Compsci) | email: dean.pemberton(a)natlib.govt.nz| Datacommunications Analyst |cphone: +64-21-633-434 | National Library of NZ |All opinions contained within this | PGP key avail from keyserver |email are purely my own. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
At 12:02 pm 23/06/98 +1200, Dean wrote:
If we're going to start running a complex system on Citylink then someone will need to manage the address space, allocation of private AS numbers, DNS for the locally-unique address space etc. That looks to me like a set of services that should be provided by Citylink themselves.
Agreed.
It does however seem that this is only viable if we all choose to
We're working on it right now - stay tuned folks. Its what we plan to do, its the how we're working on. participate in ONE exchange on Citylink.
CNHL might not be too keen to administer multiple exchanges over Citylink.
Not that I speak for them though - Simon?
While we are on the subject though, where did that discussion lead? Joe
let us think about it..... put forward the idea of cranking the ISP (what ever that means) IX on a separate set of fibre's. How does everyone else feel about this. I presume that this means having to maintain two citylink connections if you have clients on the main LAN?
wearing my sales hat - this is just fine :-) rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz This mail message contains information that is confidential and which may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase this mail. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Hey all. On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Andy Linton wrote:
The idea of locally-unique address space certainly appeals but I don't believe it should come from the rfc 1918 space. That's *private* address space - Citylink isn't private.
That's for sure.
If we're going to start running a complex system on Citylink then someone will need to manage the address space, allocation of private AS numbers, DNS for the locally-unique address space etc. That looks to me like a set of services that should be provided by Citylink themselves.
Absolutely. To wit, I've had a prowl around the list of networks used by WCC, and all the spare /24's seem to be within superblocks - of the six /24's originally assigned to WCC, two are still in use, and they are the two that don't appear in supperblocks. Bummer :-). Therefore, Citylink need to get a hold of some address space from ISI. I've had a cursory look around the ISI website, and it wasn't obvious who to talk to, so if somebody can direct me in the right direction, I'll get things moving. Any feeling on the required address range? I think it's desirable to get a single numbering scheme going on Citylink (ie, all devices numbered out of a single IP range) independant of whatever exchanges get overlaid on top. This means we'd need ~70 numbers immediately, and the network is growing at the rate of 3-5 connections a week, so I'm thinking something like a /22 would be desirable? Does ISI do bigger blocks than /24's? Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Simon, On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Simon Blake wrote:
Therefore, Citylink need to get a hold of some address space from ISI. I've had a cursory look around the ISI website, and it wasn't obvious who to talk to, so if somebody can direct me in the right direction, I'll get things moving.
Any feeling on the required address range? I think it's desirable to get a single numbering scheme going on Citylink (ie, all devices numbered out of a single IP range) independant of whatever exchanges get overlaid on top. This means we'd need ~70 numbers immediately, and the network is growing at the rate of 3-5 connections a week, so I'm thinking something like a /22 would be desirable? Does ISI do bigger blocks than /24's?
I had some discussion with Bill Manning a while back - I forwarded most of
his replies back to the list at the time, but I will mail you copies
(out-of-band).
Bill was happy to give us a class C network - you will need to take up
with him as to whether a /22 is appropriate.
To summarise, this is to number the existing "WIX" network - I take it
that there is little interest in a separate network for ISP peering.
That's fine :)
Joe
--
Joe Abley
Hi Joe,et al Apologies, another long rant. On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Joe Abley wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Simon Blake wrote:
1. Establish a second emulated LAN on CityLink for BGP peering between cooperating network operators. This will consist of a series of bilateral agreements between individual network operators. No customers should connect to ISPs over this network - this will be a "clean" IP-only network.
While I appreciate that the ISP's primary desire is an interconnect to exchange data with their "peers" (in the loosest sense of the word) on a national basis, I would really like to see an exchange set up in Wellington that also allowed any local organisation to peer on the WIX for *local* traffic.
I think that makes a lot of sense as well, although I am slightly disturbed by reports of broadcast IPX, Appletalk and NetBEUI traffic flowing helter-skelter over the current emulated LAN :)
It's not an emulated LAN, it *is* a LAN - native ethernet over fibre with stock Cisco LAN switches, presumably with an ATM interconnect in the future when someone asks for it. Like most switches, Cisco 2900XL's don't do protocol filtering/firewalling, so we haven't got any direct mechanism to prevent somebody hurling IPX,Appletalk, whatever, over the network. Over time, as more users are added and the cost for advanced features like protocol/port filtering becomes cheaper and more commonplace in switches, we'll almost certainly move to backbone switches that do support at least some protocol filtering. As the network has increased in size and bandwidth, we've moved from hubs to dumb switches to 100Mb/s manageable switches, and we're investigating gigabit ethernet - each time with a commensurate improvement in performance/diagnosability. So now, at least, we can restrict each connection to a given number/range of MAC addresses, and we have the mechanism's to hunt down and harass the users broadcasting IPX et al, even if we can't directly stop them (without disconnecting them). Having said that, non-IP broadcasts are not a huge problem on Citylink - lots of users say "look, there is IPX on the wire", but I've never heard "and it's causing us problems". It's just a couple of poorly configured Instant Internet boxes - it's not a case of somebody backhauling us onto their internal Novell net...
There is a technical problem surrounding the use of the current eLAN for BGP peering. ISPs who exchange routes using BGP over WIX will have route objects tagged within their interior BGP process with a next-hop address from network 10.0.0.0/8, since that is the addressing scheme used across the customer-access eLAN.
No, it is not. Clear use 10.96.8.0/22 for a few connections, we use 192.168.100.0/24 for in-network device management, as far as I know everybody else (the other ISP's) use some chunk of their own range on CNHL. This is an undesirable state of affairs (IMHO), but it's a fairly natural product of "line of least resistance" network construction. :-)
This presents potential problems (ppp :) since it presupposes that the 10.0.0.0/8 network is carried by each ISP's interior routing protocol which CLEAR for one is not able to do cleanly (10 is used for private CLEAR networks).
The more fundamental problem is that we need to get all the routers that need to chat together on to the same address space, be that private, public, or whatever. Currently Netlink are donating a small bit of their IP address space for the purpose, but I think it would be better if we used a range that was a) not routed internationally b) big enough that anbody can get on it, which assumes at lease a /25
We could continue to use the existing eLAN with a globally-unique address range, but that would involve multiple ARPs per router interface across the network. In my experience networks which layer multiple subnet addressing schemes across the same broadcast network are almost always messy and fraught with problems. YMMV :)
Indeed, but the alternative has always been difficult to administer - it needs a central registry to feed and water IP numbers and DNS, and up until now, there hasn't really been a will to organise a pan Citylink numbering scheme. However, with Citylink looking to take a more active role in the management of it's network and in it's involvement in WIX, hopefully a more unified approach to numbering will come.
I think this is an admirable goal, but bear in mind that customers' packets travel through a customers' router before they hit WIX anyway - is an ISPs router likely to be a bigger bottleneck than that?
Hell yes. Up until now, ISP's have connected to Citylink with routers sufficient to drive their upstream links, so there is no real need to provide much more than a 2514 when you're bottlenecked by an upstream slow pipe, so that's (more or less) what everybody uses. Customers, on the other hand, connect with all manner of exotic and mundane hardware, much of it capable of sustaining 100Mb/s. Multiple source/sink pairs @ 100Mb/s passing through a single 10Mb/s router is pretty scary, and there really shouldn't be a need for ISP's to provide such high end hardware - better that the ISP's customers communicate directly amongst themselves.
So, while the ISP's do need a bilateral peering point where individual operators can choose whether to (in effect) carry other ISP's data on their national network, I would like to see a tandem system implemented where local Citylink users can share routes for locally attached networks amongst themselves.
Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post; I was putting forward the idea that each peering ISP would maintain two connections to Citylink eLANs - one for customer access, one for peering. And by ISP I mean "anybody who is keen to persue BGP peering with other network operators in NZ". I just assume that most of these are likely to be ISPs.
Sure, I was observing that even if the ISP's did implement a seperate VLAN for national route peering, I'd like to see a similar exchange running on the current network for ordinary Citylink users (ISP's included, obviously) to share their local routes, to enhance performance over Citylink. I don't know whether it's feasible or even possible, but it certainly won't happen without the support and cooperation of the contributing ISP's.
As far as customers are concerned everything would work as it does now, since I am not proposing any changes to the way that the CityLink managed IP service works.
Managed IP being something of a misnomer, in reality each ISP asserts their own IP network over the underlying ethernet.
Citylink are/can provide hardware to make a local RA registry a reality, which is presumably necessary if non AS numbered entities want to join the IX?
The consensus seems to be that an additional route arbiter database doesn't really add any value - it makes more sense for WIX-peering ISPs to use the Merit RADB in Michigan. This avoids repeated records in national and global route registries which, in practice, will always differ to some degree.
All peering partners will need AS numbers in order to peer using BGP. AS numbers cost US$500 setup and then US$50/year from APNIC (for non-members - they are available free to members). I would have thought this was within the financial scope of all NZ ISPs who are not APNIC members.
Customers who use an ISP via CityLink do not need to peer, as their provider is effectively doing it for them. However, a customer who wanted service from more than one ISP for backup purposes could BGP-peer with the ISPs concerned exactly as it is proposed ISPs do between each other.
A locally-run route server (which draws its policy from the Merit RADB) might make sense if we find a large number of ISPs wanting to peer; however, if the number of peering ISPs/customers is low (say, below 10) then I think it's not really worth the trouble.
How about if we had, say 8 national ISP's sharing national routes, and 80 (10 from each ISP) single homed ISP customers who just want to share local route information with each other - what would that do with the equation? Would a local RADB be worthwhile if it allowed us to implement private AS numbers for these ISP's customers?
With a bit of arm twisting, I could probably squeeze a couple of unused pre-CIDR Class C's out of WCC - would that be a useful/cheaper alternative? Citylink would (I imagine) also be happy to act as a neutral party for DNS maintenance or ISI billing.
Bear in mind that any ISP may source packets from an address on this subnet - so if the Cs you are thinking of are advertised as part of a supernet (at WCC's expense) you will potentially be carrying ISPs traffic globally.
Sure.
If the Cs are not part of larger supernet routes, then you should be fine.
Could you give a firm indication on whether a non-globally-advertised WCC class C could be made available, or whether WCC is keen to administer the payment for an ISI-supplied class C network?
Sorry, I should have provided a little more background. WCC, while being instrumental in getting Citylink off the ground, is but one of some ~22 equal shareholders in Citylink - they are seperate legal entities, and once Citylink takes premises elsewhere in town (sometime soon), there will be no ties at all, other than that WCC is a customer of Citylink. In various capacities I contract to both organisations, so I happen to know that there are some pre CIDR class C's currently routed by Netlink to WCC that aren't used, and with a bit of gentle pleading I believe I could persuade WCC to sign them over to Citylink. I haven't yet checked if they're part of a superblock, nor have I actually talked to the holder of the keys (sic), but if the consensus was that it was worthwhile I'll investigate further. FWIW, it wouldn't suprise me if there were other pre CIDR class C's kicking around unused in these days of heavy NAT use - the ISP's doing traffic charging should know where they are. Failing that, I'm pretty confident that *Citylink* would be happy to oversee the payment and distribution of an ISI-supplied class C - it makes sense, given that Citylink already bill the involved organisations for other services. Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (8)
-
Andy Linton -
Chris Wedgwood -
Dean Pemberton -
Jamie Clark -
Joe Abley -
Richard Naylor -
Sid Jones -
Simon Blake