Solarix - Peering on APE
Hi All, We are now peering on APE. Those wishing to peer with us directly, please contact me off list. I would strongly suggest it.. as it appears that most people seem to have an advertise all, accept none policy in regards to the route servers. Cheers Kind Regards, Craig Spiers - Network Manager Solarix Limited DDI: +64 9 974 4753 | FAX: +64 9 523 8057 MOB: +64 21 857 183 | mailto:craig.spiers(a)solarix.co.nz?subject=From%20Signature email: craig.spiers(a)solarix.co.nz The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately.
(I tried to send this off-list to you, Craig, but the domain name in your email address has expired...) On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 19:35 +1200, Craig Spiers wrote:
We are now peering on APE. Those wishing to peer with us directly, please contact me off list.
I would strongly suggest it.. as it appears that most people seem to have an advertise all, accept none policy in regards to the route servers.
This doesn't fit with our experience on the IXes. We have generally found most people are running basically an advertise all, accept all (except obvious badness) policy on the IXes. I'd be interested to see any evidence of a widespread practice of overly strict inbound filtering of routes from APE/WIX/etc, as it would encourage us to do more bilateral peering. Cheers, -jasper
Hi all. On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 08:58:31AM +1200, Jasper Bryant-Greene said:
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 19:35 +1200, Craig Spiers wrote:
We are now peering on APE. Those wishing to peer with us directly, please contact me off list.
I would strongly suggest it.. as it appears that most people seem to have an advertise all, accept none policy in regards to the route servers.
This doesn't fit with our experience on the IXes. We have generally found most people are running basically an advertise all, accept all (except obvious badness) policy on the IXes.
Taking off my IX hat and plopping on my CDN hat, I'd observe that during the Olympics we peaked at around 1.5Gb/s delivery into APE, and about 1Gb/s into WIX. That's on routers with no bilaterals over APE - clearly somebody is listening to the route servers.
I'd be interested to see any evidence of a widespread practice of overly strict inbound filtering of routes from APE/WIX/etc, as it would encourage us to do more bilateral peering.
The StreamingNet routers attached to the exchanges only peer with the route servers (not for any particular reason, more that until this discussion started, it hadn't occurred to me to seek bilats - I hadn't perceived they were necessary). It maybe that folks are allowing the StreamingNet prefixes and dropping everything else, but that sounds a little far fetched. There are some peers who won't take longer than a /24, and others who have a restricted announce policy (particularly in Wellington), but I haven't heard of anybody announcing but not learning. If you are advertising prefixes into the route servers that are not getting out to other peers, then it would be worthwhile checking the route server looking glasses and ensuring that it's not the filters on the route servers dropping your announcements. Cheers Simon
Simon Blake wrote:
Taking off my IX hat and plopping on my CDN hat, I'd observe that during the Olympics we peaked at around 1.5Gb/s delivery into APE, and about 1Gb/s into WIX. That's on routers with no bilaterals over APE - clearly somebody is listening to the route servers.
I'm not sure it proves other peers are _really_ listening to the RS' - just that your streaming return path was via an RS learned path (although presumably the people hitting those servers got there via the IX).
I'd be interested to see any evidence of a widespread practice of overly strict inbound filtering of routes from APE/WIX/etc, as it would encourage us to do more bilateral peering.
The StreamingNet routers attached to the exchanges only peer with the route servers (not for any particular reason, more that until this discussion started, it hadn't occurred to me to seek bilats - I hadn't perceived they were necessary). It maybe that folks are allowing the StreamingNet prefixes and dropping everything else, but that sounds a little far fetched.
I haven't driven an APE connected router for some years, but it used to be common. I think I even spoke to you about it once upon a time. There are engineers who do not like spontaneous traffic swings from unexpected peers suddenly appearing (particularly when there is a peering router at or close to the IX, but some smaller sized link back to the other POP(s)), so choose not to learn or advertise routes depending on where their traffic load is. I had some particularly sensitive outbound traffic, so I never used to learn anything off the RS' except for Citylink/StreamingNet prefixes. I would from time to time scan the received-routes from the RS' and see if there was anything I wasn't learning and was interested in, but the actual occurrence of this was pretty low. I am sure there are other operators like myself out there... NB: Some of the assymmetry people are seeing could be from out-of-date filters, or from the additional route-server ASN in the path causing BGP to choose a less-desirable path. Not everyone uses the localpref sledge-hammer. aj
participants (4)
-
Alastair Johnson -
Craig Spiers -
Jasper Bryant-Greene -
Simon Blake