[governance] Re: peering policies

nancyp at yorku.ca nancyp at yorku.ca
Thu Apr 17 12:44:06 EDT 2008 

M,
OPI (Open Peering Initiative) is in the RIPE region. What abt ARIN?
When you suggested I emailed ARIN, I did. Reply from ARIN below:

Date:   Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:11:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:  	hostmaster at arin.net
To:  	nancyp at yorku.ca
Subject:  Re: [ARIN-20080416.1483] ASN request info
Hello,
> May I inquire: is documenting routing policy mandatory* for ARIN-ASN Requests?
> Or is it recommended practice?

We need only enough information to verify the requester has justification
for a globally unique AS number.

AS numbers are commonly assigned based on an intent to multi-home with two
or more upstream providers.  In that scenario, all we need to know about
the routing policy is the upstream ISPs the requester will be peering
with.

If the requester is basing justification on a unique routing policy, we'll
need enough information to verify the AS will have a routing policy that
differs from its border peers.
Regards,
hostmaster at arin.net

Date: 	Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:27:38 +0300
From: 	dogwallah at gmail.com
To: 	nancyp at yorku.ca
Subject: Re: peering policies

Hello,
>> We need only enough information to verify the requester has justification
>> for a globally unique AS number.
>
> The reply seems that in ARIN the routing policies of the networks are not
> mandatory*, public info - is this correct?

Right.

Regards,
hostmaster at arin.net

McTim earlier we discussed:
> >  You describe the AP region documenting routing policy is mandatory* - is >>
this policy for ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE, AFRINIC, etc?
>  First, you need to distinguish btwn "policy" as decided upon by the
>  RIR community and what is mandatory by RIR/IRR procedure (in this
>  case, the specific Db implementation (RPSL).  So no, I don't think
>  it's required by policy by any region (but I could be wrong) but yes,
>  it is mandatory for RIPE, ARIN, MERIT, LACNIC (IIRC)

The examples you email to me are from AP and RIPE but not ARIN. Its North
America I'm looking at.
Further I'm researching private bilateral peering.
This is* difficult (for me) but not IPV6 or black hole physics. I'd appreciate
any help I can get. Thank you McTim and to the list and the very important work
in/on it,
Nancy Paterson
YorkU
Toronto, Canada



========================================
Quoting McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>:

> this page may also be useful to you:
>
> http://www.openpeering.nl/publicpeering.shtml
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:26 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
> > M,
> >
> >  May I ask: abt Bilateral Peering (Tier 1 2 and 3 providers) in the ARIN
> Region?
> >  Do they have mandatory transparent peering policies?
> >  Are these routes public information on the Internet Routing Registry?
> >  thnx
> >
> > NP
> >
> >
> >
> >  Quoting McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:40 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
> >  > > M,
> >  > >  You describe the AP region and RIPE - that documenting routing policy
> is
> >  > >  mandatory* - is this policy for ARIN?
> >  >
> >  > I don't know, you could ask them, but they do ask for the data when
> >  > you submit a request for an ASN:
> >  >
> >  > http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/asn-request.txt
> >  >
> >  > >
> >  > >  The problem I identify (I think) is largely a US problem. Outside
> >  > >  of the US most major peering points are open and have well
> established
> >  > >  transparent peering policies.
> >  >
> >  > Where did you get this idea?  Network operator globally do this, it's
> >  > not like there are different Best Common Practices in different parts
> >  > of the world.  Major peering points in the US are open and transparent
> >  > as well.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > >  I think the US seems to be the main battleground for carriers
> refusing
> >  > transit
> >  >
> >  > No one really refuses transit, it's turning down business.  Transit is
> >  > what you call a connection to your upstream provider.  One pays for
> >  > transit, it allows you to get packets from the rest of the world.
> >  >
> >  > >  or
> >  > >  peering (witness the current battle between Cogent and Telia).
> >  >
> >  > People peer or don't peer with other networks if it is in their
> >  > interests to do so.  One of the above parties obviously thought it was
> >  > not in their interest to peer with the other and discontinued the
> >  > peering session. This happens frequently.
> >  >
> >  > I don't know
> >  > >  why I surmise this is the case where there such problems in the US
> with
> >  > >  establishing
> >  > >  open peering policies.
> >  >
> >  > I submit that it's not.
> >  >
> >  > Let's look at Cogent for example, they use AS174, and several others,
> >  > but we'll take 174, which can be seen here:
> >  >
> >  >
> >
>
http://www.db.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=-a+as174&do_search=Search
> >  >
> >  > the -a flag gets data from all mirrored databases, including ARIN and
> RaDB.
> >  >
> >  > See, all the data you need is there, and it's there for an operational
> >  > reason, let's just look at he first few lines:
> >  >
> >  > % Information related to 'AS174'
> >  >
> >  > aut-num:         AS174
> >  > as-name:         COGENT
> >  > descr:           Cogent/PSI
> >  > import:          from AS3 accept ANY
> >  > export:          to AS3 announce ANY
> >  > import:          from AS32 accept ANY
> >  > export:          to AS32 announce ANY
> >  >
> >  > import:          from AS3 accept ANY  /This means cogent peers with
> >  > AS3, they accept ANY routes from 3, which means traffic flows to 3
> >  > from Cogent
> >  >
> >  > export:          to AS3 announce ANY  / This means that Cogent sends
> >  > ANY routes to 3, which means traffic flows to Cogent from 3
> >  >
> >  > I am sorry to shred your theory, but it won't stand up to the data.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > >
> >  > >  The MERIT RADb: The Routing Assets Database states:
> >  > >  Hundreds of organizations that operate networks—including ISPs,
> >  > universities,
> >  > >  and business enterprises— publicly publish, or register, their
> routing
> >  > policy
> >  > >  and route announcements in the RADb to facilitate the operation of
> the
> >  > >  Internet. Organizations throughout the world use the information in
> the
> >  > RADb to
> >  > >  troubleshoot routing problems, automatically configure backbone
> routers,
> >  > >  generate access lists, and perform network planning.
> >  > >
> >  > >  I'm trying to find out what's missing (hard to describe something's
> that's
> >  > >  missing. Is MERIT the sole US arbiter of this?
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > What's missing is that what's in the Database(s) is just documentation
> >  > of the routing policies, the actual routing is on the routers.
> >  >
> >  > MERIT is NOT an arbiter of anything. It's just a database that people
> >  > CAN use (along with all the others) to document their routing
> >  > policies.
> >  >
> >  > Who are you reading in your studies?  I suggest that folk like Tom
> >  > Vest and Geoff Huston are the 2 top guys in the field. but really,
> >  > it's impenetrable stuff unless you actually run a network.
> >  >
> >  > --
> >  > Cheers,
> >  >
> >  > McTim
> >  > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list