AS paths from NZIX route servers
Hi All, Currently ( all? ) the NZIX route servers insert the exchange ASN into routes that are advertised to the route servers. The exchanges that we peer with overseas such as Any2 in LA, Equinix Sydney and NSW-IX plus the new AKL-IX exchange do not insert the exchange ASN into advertisements, so all else being equal the paths from those exchanges are shorter than routes from APE and WIX by one AS hop. There are other NZ networks like us that peer at APE and/or WIX and also peer at overseas exchanges and to have optimal traffic flows with them, we put in one off hacks per network. The least ugly ways of doing this for us work fine but create per peer config that must be maintained. Ideally we can put bilateral peering up at APE and WIX so that the extra AS hop goes away but sometimes bilateral peering is impractical due to the other networks peering policy. I can't think of a reason why putting the exchange ASN in the path helps anyone. Is this just a hangover from the old days? Or is there some legitimate reason that it should be like this? Cheers, -- Lincoln Reid Head of Networks ACSData - AS18119 lincoln(a)acsdata.co.nz Phone: +64 4 939 2200 Fax: +64 4 939 2201
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Lincoln Reid <lincoln(a)acsdata.co.nz> wrote:
Hi All,
Currently ( all? ) the NZIX route servers insert the exchange ASN into routes that are advertised to the route servers.
That is correct.
The exchanges that we peer with overseas such as Any2 in LA, Equinix
Sydney and NSW-IX plus the new AKL-IX exchange do not insert the
exchange ASN into advertisements, so all else being equal the paths from those exchanges are shorter than routes from APE and WIX by one AS hop.
Agreed. There are other NZ networks like us that peer at APE and/or WIX and also
peer at overseas exchanges and to have optimal traffic flows with them, we put in one off hacks per network. The least ugly ways of doing this for us work fine but create per peer config that must be maintained. Ideally we can put bilateral peering up at APE and WIX so that the extra AS hop goes away but sometimes bilateral peering is impractical due to the other networks peering policy.
Again agreed. I can't think of a reason why putting the exchange ASN in the path helps
anyone. Is this just a hangover from the old days? Or is there some legitimate reason that it should be like this?
We can remove it on a per peer basis or across the whole IX, so why haven’t we? It’s a combination of things. When the exchanges were built I don't believe there was the appropriate knob to turn it off. We had input some time ago [before the others IX’s lit up] that some IX participants considered it a useful thing as it helped to more easily identify where routes were learnt e.g.we were told people wanted it, so we didn’t change it If we made a blanket change now to remove it there would be an effect on IX traffic so we’d certainly want to let people know that was going to happen and when. It's a simple change to the scripting to enable it across the whole exchange but given there was perceived to be some value attached by some participants to having it we're more in favour of turning it on by request. That obviously will require a little more work on our behalf, indications here of interest would help with that. Input welcomed. Enjoy your weekends -- cheers, Sid
Sounds entirely reasonable. 100% of people in this thread support this idea. -- Daniel Griggs 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.
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 On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
Sounds entirely reasonable.
100% of people in this thread support this idea.
-- Daniel Griggs 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
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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
+1 for removing the ASN from the AS_PATH by default. There are more appropriate mechanisms to determine where a route enters one's network than the AS_PATH. Cheers -Mike
On 1/08/2016, at 9:40 AM, Simon Allard <Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz> 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.
Simon Allard | Development & Operations Manager D: +64 9 550 2790 E: Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz M: +64 20 1000 790 W: vocus.co.nz A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622 <Mail Attachment.png>
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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 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
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
Sounds entirely reasonable.
100% of people in this thread support this idea.
-- Daniel Griggs 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
+1 to this, this will bring y'all in line with normal IX behavior, removing one more "oddity" in coming to NZ Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Mike Jager <mike(a)mikej.net.nz> wrote:
+1 for removing the ASN from the AS_PATH by default. There are more appropriate mechanisms to determine where a route enters one's network than the AS_PATH.
Cheers -Mike
On 1/08/2016, at 9:40 AM, Simon Allard <Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz> 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.
Simon Allard | Development & Operations Manager D: +64 9 550 2790 E: Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz M: +64 20 1000 790 W: vocus.co.nz A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622 <Mail Attachment.png>
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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 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
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
Sounds entirely reasonable.
100% of people in this thread support this idea.
-- Daniel Griggs 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
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Thanks for the feedback so far, we’re listening. Further input welcomed either on or off list. We’ll endeavour to let the community know our plans ASAP and we’ll be giving ample notice of any changes to the status quo. On 1/08/16, 09:46, "nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Mike Jager" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of mike(a)mikej.net.nz> wrote: +1 for removing the ASN from the AS_PATH by default. There are more appropriate mechanisms to determine where a route enters one's network than the AS_PATH. Cheers -Mike > On 1/08/2016, at 9:40 AM, Simon Allard <Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz> 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. > > > > > Simon Allard | Development & Operations Manager > D: +64 9 550 2790 E: Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz > M: +64 20 1000 790 W: vocus.co.nz > A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622 > <Mail Attachment.png> > > 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> > 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 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 > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> wrote: > > Sounds entirely reasonable. > > 100% of people in this thread support this idea. > > -- > Daniel Griggs > 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
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:57:42 +0000, Sid Jones wrote:
Thanks for the feedback so far, we’re listening. Further input welcomed either on or off list. We’ll endeavour to let the community know our plans ASAP and we’ll be giving ample notice of any changes to the status quo.
Because people hassled me on IRC, here are my 2 cents: o I agree that the RSes shouldn't insert the IX AS, but acknowledge that they do currently. o A "from today onwards, all new peers and also anyone who asks" policy doesn't seem like a bad start to fixing things. o Flag day change for everyone may not be necessary or desirable. Assuming a lot of the smaller networks using the RSes won't be well equipped to handle the change. Leaving things as they are doesn't hurt those people because they don't know or don't care about it anyway. Maybe on the other hand they wouldn't notice? o Either way those smaller networks are important because the IX gives them a low barrier to entry to local peering, and that enriches the experience and value for all exchange participants. A big part of the value proposition of the Internet is democratising and lowering the barriers to access to technology, and I see the IXes as being an important part of this. Folks who really care today can potentially rewrite the AS path on incoming prefixes? BIRD at least can do this. -- Michael Fincham
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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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.
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(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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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
But at least everyone else will see who they are...
On 1/08/2016, at 4:58 pm, Richard Nelson <richardn(a)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...
..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(a)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(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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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
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 <nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz> 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 the
On 1/08/16 4:55 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote: 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz
<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto:
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
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 <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz> 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 <nznog(a)daork.net <mailto:nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz <mailto:richardn(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> [mailto: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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto: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 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 <mailto:Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz> M: +64 20 1000 790W: vocus.co.nz <http://vocus.co.nz/> A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz><mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <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.nz <mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz><mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net <mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net><mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net <mailto: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 <mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog <https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog>
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog <https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog>
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog <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
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 <chrisj(a)aprole.com> 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 <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz <mailto:tim(a)hoffman.net.nz>> 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 <nznog(a)daork.net <mailto:nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz <mailto:richardn(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> [mailto: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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto: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 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 <mailto:Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz> M: +64 20 1000 790W: vocus.co.nz <http://vocus.co.nz/> A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz><mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <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.nz <mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz><mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net <mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net><mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net <mailto: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 <mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog <https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog>
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog <https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog>
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog <https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog>
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto: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
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 <nznog(a)daork.net> 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 <chrisj(a)aprole.com> 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 <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz> 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 <nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz> 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz
<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto:
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
Wasn't going to chime in, but hey, little creatures won again. One of the reasons we de-peered from the APE was because of the as-path. We peer at many many exchanges, and NONE of them insert their kinda useless ASN in the path. And thank god for that, as it is of absolutely no use. If you want to identify where traffic comes from, there are wonderful things called communities. If that's too hard, then just don't bother. My $0.02 Callum On Monday, 1 August 2016, Tim Hoffman <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz> wrote:
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 <nznog(a)daork.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nznog(a)daork.net');>> 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 <chrisj(a)aprole.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chrisj(a)aprole.com');>> 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 <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tim(a)hoffman.net.nz');>> 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 <nznog(a)daork.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','richardn(a)waikato.ac.nz');>> 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz');> [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz');>] On Behalf Of Dave Mill Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 8:51 a.m. To: Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz');>> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz');><mailto: daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz');>>> wrote:
Sounds entirely reasonable.
100% of people in this thread support this idea.
-- Daniel Griggs daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz');><mailto: daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz');>>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nznog(a)uuuuuu.net');><mailto: nznog(a)uuuuuu.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz');> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz');> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz');> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz');> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz');> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Callum Barr me(a)callumb.com
As a smaller eyeball provider, we dropped our 1Gbps port with APE as there wasn't significant inbound traffic that we weren't able to get via NZIX Inc, who now charge $350/m for a 10G port. Megaport's pricing isn't far off this but Citylink were charging more for a 1Gbps and significantly more for 10Gbps. Unsure if their pricing has reduced since their effective monopoly over Auckland peering was disrupted. Transit in NZ is cheaper for any network doing less than 100Mbps regular traffic over peering. Regardless many smaller networks peer because it's a good thing to do for control, performance and community reasons :) Regards, Jesse On Sunday, 31 July 2016, Tim Hoffman <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tim(a)hoffman.net.nz');>> wrote:
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 <nznog(a)daork.net> 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 <chrisj(a)aprole.com> 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 <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz> 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 <nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz> 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz
<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto:
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
-- *Jesse Archer* *General Manager*Full Flavour *p. *07 577 0099 *ddi*. 07 281 1391 *s*. Skype "myfullflavour" *e*. jesse(a)fullflavour.nz <jesse(a)fullflavourmedia.co.nz> *w*. fullflavour.nz <http://www.fullflavourmedia.co.nz/> *a. *Basestation, 148 Durham Street, Tauranga *a*. PO Box 13403, Tauranga Central, Tauranga 3141, New Zealand
Likewise, During a recent restructure of our transit and peering we dropped national peering/APE opting instead for AKL-IX and Mega with a small paid VF/Spark peering session for remote workers. No effective blow back from Top 10 sites or clients over this. We’ve actually found direct bilat peering’s over these fabric’s offers us something transit couldn’t – Relationships, Direct peering with Google for example gives us a whole suite of tools paid CDN access in NZ couldn’t around monitoring/performance and creates a better flow for issues between our eyeballs and the CDN networks. Until this thread popped up I’d forgotten this little quirk of Citylink peering and I’m another small voice in favour of just setting a date and removing it TRISTRAM CHEER UBER GROUP LIMITED NETWORK ARCHITECT - MOST PROBLEMS ARE THE RESULT OF PREVIOUS SOLUTIONS... [Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/UberGroup?_rdr=p> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ubergroupltd> E: t(a)uber.co.nz<mailto:t(a)uber.co.nz> P: 09 438 5472 Ext 803 | M: +64 0224121985 | W: www.uber.co.nz<http://www.uber.co.nz> 53 PORT ROAD | PO BOX 5083 | WHANGAREI | NEW ZEALAND From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Jesse Archer Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 10:19 PM To: Tim Hoffman <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz> Cc: NZNOG Mailing-List <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: [nznog] AS paths from NZIX route servers As a smaller eyeball provider, we dropped our 1Gbps port with APE as there wasn't significant inbound traffic that we weren't able to get via NZIX Inc, who now charge $350/m for a 10G port. Megaport's pricing isn't far off this but Citylink were charging more for a 1Gbps and significantly more for 10Gbps. Unsure if their pricing has reduced since their effective monopoly over Auckland peering was disrupted. Transit in NZ is cheaper for any network doing less than 100Mbps regular traffic over peering. Regardless many smaller networks peer because it's a good thing to do for control, performance and community reasons :) Regards, Jesse On Sunday, 31 July 2016, Tim Hoffman <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tim(a)hoffman.net.nz');>> wrote: 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 <nznog(a)daork.net<mailto:nznog(a)daork.net>> 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 <chrisj(a)aprole.com<mailto:chrisj(a)aprole.com>> 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 <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz<mailto:tim(a)hoffman.net.nz>> 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 <nznog(a)daork.net<mailto:nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz<mailto:richardn(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto: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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto: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 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<mailto:Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz> M: +64 20 1000 790W: vocus.co.nz<http://vocus.co.nz/> A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz%3cmailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>>> wrote:
Sounds entirely reasonable.
100% of people in this thread support this idea.
-- Daniel Griggs daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz%3cmailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>>
On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net%3cmailto: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<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog -- Jesse Archer General Manager Full Flavour [http://fullflavour.co.nz/files/7814/0357/5893/full-flavour.png] p. 07 577 0099 ddi. 07 281 1391 s. Skype "myfullflavour" e. jesse(a)fullflavour.nz<mailto:jesse(a)fullflavourmedia.co.nz> w. fullflavour.nz<http://www.fullflavourmedia.co.nz/> a. Basestation, 148 Durham Street, Tauranga a. PO Box 13403, Tauranga Central, Tauranga 3141, New Zealand
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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of nznog(a)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(a)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(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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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
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(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of nznog(a)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(a)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(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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: 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
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(a)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(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of nznog(a)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(a)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(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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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
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(a)hoffman.net.nz<mailto:tim(a)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(a)hoffman.net.nz<mailto:tim(a)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(a)citylink.co.nz<mailto:sid.jones(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> on behalf of nznog(a)daork.net<mailto:nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz<mailto:richardn(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> [mailto: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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>> >>> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto: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 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<mailto:Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz> >>> M: +64 20 1000 790W: vocus.co.nz<http://vocus.co.nz> >>> A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622 >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz><mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz><mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net><mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> >> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> > https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
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 <https://www.peeringdb.com/net/3308> 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of nznog(a)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(a)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(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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: 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
Is there “an intention to at some point finish this migration to move towards a single, consistent, state?” Yes, there is. As to exactly when - I can’t give you specific date as it has yet to be directly discussed and negotiated with the current IX participants. When we know more it’ll be publicised here. On 6/09/16, 16:40, "Tim Hoffman" <tim(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of nznog(a)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(a)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(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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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
Good to hear. Will this finish date be finalized and committed to prior to starting to get into the transitive state? It would be good to ensure that this does not drag into months or years of being in a migration state. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Sid Jones <sid.jones(a)citylink.co.nz> wrote:
Is there “an intention to at some point finish this migration to move towards a single, consistent, state?”
Yes, there is. As to exactly when - I can’t give you specific date as it has yet to be directly discussed and negotiated with the current IX participants.
When we know more it’ll be publicised here.
On 6/09/16, 16:40, "Tim Hoffman" <tim(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of nznog(a)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(a)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(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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> 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 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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz <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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: 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
As I already said “When we know more it’ll be publicised here.” Go and have a beer. On 7/09/16, 12:33, "Tim Hoffman" <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz<mailto:tim(a)hoffman.net.nz>> wrote: Good to hear. Will this finish date be finalized and committed to prior to starting to get into the transitive state? It would be good to ensure that this does not drag into months or years of being in a migration state. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Sid Jones <sid.jones(a)citylink.co.nz<mailto:sid.jones(a)citylink.co.nz>> wrote: Is there “an intention to at some point finish this migration to move towards a single, consistent, state?” Yes, there is. As to exactly when - I can’t give you specific date as it has yet to be directly discussed and negotiated with the current IX participants. When we know more it’ll be publicised here. On 6/09/16, 16:40, "Tim Hoffman" <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz<mailto:tim(a)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(a)citylink.co.nz<mailto:sid.jones(a)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(a)hoffman.net.nz<mailto:tim(a)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(a)hoffman.net.nz<mailto:tim(a)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(a)citylink.co.nz<mailto:sid.jones(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> on behalf of Nathan Ward" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> on behalf of nznog(a)daork.net<mailto:nznog(a)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(a)waikato.ac.nz<mailto:richardn(a)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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> [mailto: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 <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>> >>> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto: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 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<mailto:Simon.Allard(a)m2group.co.nz> >>> M: +64 20 1000 790W: vocus.co.nz<http://vocus.co.nz> >>> A: Level 2, 1-7 The Strand, Takapuna 0622 >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Griggs <daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz><mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<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.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz><mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:daniel(a)nzrs.net.nz>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2016, at 7:12 PM, Sid Jones <nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net><mailto:nznog(a)uuuuuu.net<mailto: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<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> >> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> > https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Hi Tim, Sid, So can we clarify ... if Site A is "opt out" (i.e. old and busted behaviour, IX ASN inserted) and site B is "opt in" (new hotness behaviour, IX ASN not inserted): * Would Site A see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site B? * Would Site B see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site A? That is, is the ASN inserted into a route's AS path based on where the route comes from, or where it's announced to? Is there more than one setting? -- don
Hi Don, Site A will see the IX ASN in routes received from the IX announced by B Site B will not see the IX ASN in the routes received from the IX announced by A There’s one knob for the implementations I’ve looked at - per client session - off or on On 7/09/16, 12:48, "nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> on behalf of Don Stokes" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> on behalf of don(a)daedalus.co.nz<mailto:don(a)daedalus.co.nz>> wrote: Hi Tim, Sid, So can we clarify ... if Site A is "opt out" (i.e. old and busted behaviour, IX ASN inserted) and site B is "opt in" (new hotness behaviour, IX ASN not inserted): * Would Site A see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site B? * Would Site B see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site A? That is, is the ASN inserted into a route's AS path based on where the route comes from, or where it's announced to? Is there more than one setting? -- don
How will this be controlled? BGP community? RADB? Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 6, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Sid Jones <sid.jones(a)citylink.co.nz> wrote:
Hi Don,
Site A will see the IX ASN in routes received from the IX announced by B
Site B will not see the IX ASN in the routes received from the IX announced by A
There’s one knob for the implementations I’ve looked at - per client session - off or on
On 7/09/16, 12:48, "nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of Don Stokes" <nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz on behalf of don(a)daedalus.co.nz> wrote:
Hi Tim, Sid,
So can we clarify ... if Site A is "opt out" (i.e. old and busted behaviour, IX ASN inserted) and site B is "opt in" (new hotness behaviour, IX ASN not inserted): Would Site A see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site B? Would Site B see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site A? That is, is the ASN inserted into a route's AS path based on where the route comes from, or where it's announced to? Is there more than one setting?
-- don _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
If only there were some RFCs for how to deploy route servers at exchange points..... http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7947.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7948.txt :) On Wednesday, 7 September 2016, Don Stokes <don(a)daedalus.co.nz> wrote:
Hi Tim, Sid,
So can we clarify ... if Site A is "opt out" (i.e. old and busted behaviour, IX ASN inserted) and site B is "opt in" (new hotness behaviour, IX ASN not inserted):
- Would Site A see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site B? - Would Site B see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site A?
That is, is the ASN inserted into a route's AS path based on where the route comes from, or where it's announced to? Is there more than one setting?
-- don
Another nznog post after one has obviously had too many beers on a Friday night. Suggesting they RTFM… lE karl(a)mothership.co.nz <mailto:karl(a)mothership.co.nz> lW mothership.co.nz <http://mothership.co.nz/> lA PO Box 99814, Newmarket lM 021 999 990 lP 974 3171
On 9/09/2016, at 8:32 PM, Dean Pemberton <nznog(a)deanpemberton.com> wrote:
If only there were some RFCs for how to deploy route servers at exchange points.....
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7947.txt <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7947.txt> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7948.txt <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7948.txt>
:)
On Wednesday, 7 September 2016, Don Stokes <don(a)daedalus.co.nz <mailto:don(a)daedalus.co.nz>> wrote: Hi Tim, Sid,
So can we clarify ... if Site A is "opt out" (i.e. old and busted behaviour, IX ASN inserted) and site B is "opt in" (new hotness behaviour, IX ASN not inserted): Would Site A see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site B? Would Site B see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site A? That is, is the ASN inserted into a route's AS path based on where the route comes from, or where it's announced to? Is there more than one setting?
-- don _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
participants (21)
-
Callum Barr -
Chris Jones -
Daniel Griggs -
Dave Mill -
Dean Pemberton -
Don Stokes -
Jesse Archer -
Karl Hardisty -
Lincoln Reid -
Martin D Kealey -
Michael Fincham -
Mike Jager -
Nathan Ward -
Pete Mundy -
Richard Nelson -
Sid Jones -
Sid Jones -
Simon Allard -
Tim Hoffman -
Tom Paseka -
Tristram Cheer