Anyone got numbers on peering vs transit?
Hello, I wonder if anyone has done any estimates on how many percent of the Internet traffic: A) does not pass a peering relationship (i.e. is AS internal or passes through transit connections only) B) passes a public peering relationship C) passes a private peering relationship I know this is fairly impossible to estimate globally, so even any local or network specific research is appreciated. -- Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy Internetworking Consulting Cellular: +358 45 670 2048 World Wide Web: www.axu.fi
Re: AOL 421 errors (and 554 errors too)
At the risk of posting a 'me too' email, we have also had issues getting a similar problem resolved with AOL. We have been receiving numerous ISP:B2 and ISP:B3 rejection codes from AOL email servers. We have contacted their postmaster # as posted on their website and each time talked with a very nice support tech. However, in each and every case, we were not able to get the problem resolved. AOL even went so far as to say that they would escalate and have a member of their tech support team contact me which never happened. We have subscribed to their FBL service for over a year. Lately, the messages that we receive in the FBL are nowhere near spam. We contacted the complaintant @ AOL and each time they responded that they hit 'report as spam' instead of delete which is right next to each other. If someone from AOL is reading this, please forward to someone in your postmaster team. All other means to contact AOL Postmaster have resulted in dead-ends. -- Thanks, - Joseph W. Breu, CCNA phone : +1.319.268.5228 Senior Network Administratorfax : +1.319.266.8158 Cedar Falls Utilities cell : +1.319.493.1686 support: +1.319.268.5221 url : http://www.cfu.net Quoting Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Matthew Black wrote: For what it's worth, I received a very nice e-mail and had an extended telephone conversation with a third-tier support manager from AOL. They do respond and that's why I placed my original post on this thread. I too received contact from AOL, and they have been extremely helpful. Thank you AOL, and thank you NANOG. -Jim P. binwAdtZopGN7.bin Description: PGP Public Key
Re: Multi ISP DDOS
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:21:04PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > The killer here is that they asked a lot of people a year ago whether this > was a good idea and everyone said no. Agreed. It's just the latest in the series of fiascos that we've seen when people try to respond to abuse with abuse. It doesn't work, it's not going to work, and the most likely outcome of any attempt to make it work will be yet another illustration of the law of unintended consequences. (e.g. Lycos' "MakeLoveNotSPam") Not to mention that furnishing useful intelligence to the enemy (which BS does by design) is a poor strategy. ---Rsk
Re: Multi ISP DDOS
At 07:16 PM 5/4/2006, william(at)elan.net wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: At 11:15 AM 5/3/2006, John Levine wrote: >Uh. Who let the Frog out? > >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0,70798-0.html?tw=r ss .technology It's all explained here: http://weblog.johnlevine.com/2006/05/03 And this just hit wires with quotes from Renesys and SANS ISC. http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/04/78074_HNbluesecurityddos_1.html I hate to be the bearer of bad news to spammers :) but based on bluesecurity's tactics I can make a guess about attitude of their people and its such that DoS attack on them will only cause them more determination to continue and I suspect to majority of their users as well (and publicity is also likely to bring them more users). Moving the site to TypePad was incorrect way of dealing with attack though; but its actually not the first time I've heard of the site using a blog as temporary page while their primary site is down due to DoS... - some education on what blogs are good for is in order. But as it is looks like bluesecurity is moving to prolexic which claim to deal with just such situations. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to BS' VC's, but BS moving their DNS to UltraDNS and hosting to Prolexic was likely not part of the business plan. "They ain't cheap". The spammers can now theoretically force them to spend all time and all their money responding to attacks. The killer here is that they asked a lot of people a year ago whether this was a good idea and everyone said no. Read John Levine's blog and pointer to a few of his previous articles. He wasn't the only person they asked. There's a WHOLE lot more to this than is public. Spammers: 2 Blue Security: 0 NANOG: -2 (vigilante time sink) -M< -- Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multi ISP DDOS
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: At 11:15 AM 5/3/2006, John Levine wrote: >Uh. Who let the Frog out? > >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0,70798-0.html?tw=rss .technology It's all explained here: http://weblog.johnlevine.com/2006/05/03 And this just hit wires with quotes from Renesys and SANS ISC. http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/04/78074_HNbluesecurityddos_1.html I hate to be the bearer of bad news to spammers :) but based on bluesecurity's tactics I can make a guess about attitude of their people and its such that DoS attack on them will only cause them more determination to continue and I suspect to majority of their users as well (and publicity is also likely to bring them more users). Moving the site to TypePad was incorrect way of dealing with attack though; but its actually not the first time I've heard of the site using a blog as temporary page while their primary site is down due to DoS... - some education on what blogs are good for is in order. But as it is looks like bluesecurity is moving to prolexic which claim to deal with just such situations. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Google - Contact
Does anyone have a Google contact I can email, other then whats posted on the website? I have been emailing the posted contacts and have not received any response. Thanks
Re: Multi ISP DDOS
At 11:15 AM 5/3/2006, John Levine wrote: >Uh. Who let the Frog out? > >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0,70798-0.html?tw=rss .technology It's all explained here: http://weblog.johnlevine.com/2006/05/03 And this just hit wires with quotes from Renesys and SANS ISC. http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/04/78074_HNbluesecurityddos_1.html -M< -- Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crystal Tech
Is there anyone on the list from crystaltech.com if so can someone contact me off list. Your customers are having problems reaching my mx record and mail from you all to our domains are bouncing.
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
On 5/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: why would anyone do that? --bill Some companies feel entitled to charging more for their routes than they would for simple transit. aaron.glenn
Re: AOL 421 errors
Matthew Black wrote: For what it's worth, I received a very nice e-mail and had an extended telephone conversation with a third-tier support manager from AOL. They do respond and that's why I placed my original post on this thread. I too received contact from AOL, and they have been extremely helpful. Thank you AOL, and thank you NANOG. -Jim P.
Re: AOL 421 errors
On Thu, 4 May 2006 10:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Matt Ghali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 3 May 2006, Joe Maimon wrote: You know, people say things like this a lot. Its not relevant. What is relevant is how AOL is supposed to know that a) the email considered for rejection is actually wanted b) and wanted by AOL employees themselves And if they did know how to accurately determine that, we wouldnt be having this discussion. The irony here of course, is that Matt Black's systems can't even tell if they want the mail until _after_ the accept it- but that's a feature, and AOL's in-transaction softfails are evil. Or something. matto [EMAIL PROTECTED]< Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan Nothing beats an ad hominem attack, huh? The irony here is that your message contains that tribute to the media critic. Now, it seems you are sugggesting that my e-mail servers hold back on final accept until a message gets delivered to a remote AOL server. Did I misread the above message? For what it's worth, I received a very nice e-mail and had an extended telephone conversation with a third-tier support manager from AOL. They do respond and that's why I placed my original post on this thread. I've found that honey is usually more effective than vinegar (that's a metaphor). matthew black network services california state university, long beach
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by Tier 1. ;-) We do buy from a number of providers, many of which would be considered Tier 1 by many people. On Thu, 4 May 2006, Jon Lyons wrote: Internap? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: From an off-list discussion: Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) John why would anyone do that? --bill - Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: AOL 421 errors
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Joe Maimon wrote: You know, people say things like this a lot. Its not relevant. What is relevant is how AOL is supposed to know that a) the email considered for rejection is actually wanted b) and wanted by AOL employees themselves And if they did know how to accurately determine that, we wouldnt be having this discussion. The irony here of course, is that Matt Black's systems can't even tell if they want the mail until _after_ the accept it- but that's a feature, and AOL's in-transaction softfails are evil. Or something. matto [EMAIL PROTECTED]< Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan
Re: AOL 421 errors
Don't barrage them with bogus joejob bounce notifications?
IIRC that is a feature of your mail configuration down there.
matto
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Matthew Black wrote:
We've noticed a surge in 421 e-mail errors from AOL.
Message soft bounced for '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', '4.3.2 - Not accepting messages at
this time ('421', [': (DYN:T1)
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/421dynt1.html', 'SERVICE NOT
AVAILABLE']) []'
It seems as though they've tightened down their policies.
We're pretty good at preventing spam with our IronPort
anti-spam gateways and internal policies.
We've also subscribed to their FBL notification service.
I'm surprised at the types of messages AOL customers consider
as spam. Anything and everything: university admission acceptance
notices; instructor class assignments; photos from friends; etc.
matthew black
california state university, long beach
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<
Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity.
- Marshall McLuhan
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
At 12:57 PM 5/4/2006, Jon Lyons wrote: Internap? Yes. That's what I was thinking, but too easy? -M< -- Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
Internap?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote:> > From an off-list discussion:> > Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP > (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.)> > John why would anyone do that?--bill How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
Internap?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote:> > From an off-list discussion:> > Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP > (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.)> > John why would anyone do that?--bill Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: > > From an off-list discussion: > > Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP > (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) > > John why would anyone do that? --bill
Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
From an off-list discussion: Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) John
Re: AOL 421 errors
On 5/4/06, Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just point your intended receivers to AOL's help desk. That just creates Chinese whispers. You can probably do that - but dont astroturf the postmasters, dont setup boilerplate that you ask people to email in en masse to their abuse desk or phone in to them. Especially if you are in regular touch with their postmasters and you find them responsive.
Re: AOL 421 errors
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 22:28, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > You know, people say things like this a lot. Its not relevant. What is > relevant is how AOL is supposed to know that On the subject of which I'm in discussion with AOL to get email through that contains something which is a known spammers trick, because it is also the right thing to have in our emails . Content is not always a good clue. > a) the email considered for rejection is actually wanted > b) and wanted by AOL employees themselves I thought these went to aol.NET which has different spam filtering in place. > And if they did know how to accurately determine that, we wouldnt be > having this discussion. :) > Just point your intended receivers to AOL's help desk. That just creates Chinese whispers. For technical issues it really helps if providers can take reports from "non-customers", or people providing services to their existing clients. This seems impossible for many big companies. > You get what you pay for. I think choosing providers carefully can get you more for less. > > AOL have employees who regularly read SPAM-L, which is probably a better forum for such questions. Although in an ideal world "postmaster@" would work, it rarely seems to with AOL.
Re: Tier 2 - Lease?
> to underline a point made previously though: Tier-1 is a routing > architecture term that doesn't have any useful direct bearing in how > best to select a service provider. some of the best service providers > in the world are not "tier-1" and some of the worst are ( i won't name > members of either camp.). The meaning of "tier 1" is not static. At one time it referred to providers with more-or-less national coverage who more-or-less owned their own facilities. Somewhere along the line, buyers decided that peering was an important factor in buying decisions and "tier 1" came to mean "companies who do not have blackholes because of lack of peering". Routing engineers interpreted this to mean "companies with settlement-free interconnect" since at the time, transit was seen as an inferior way to get connectivity. In today's world where latency and packet loss figures are more important to buying decisions, I suspect that "tier 1" refers to "companies who run good networks with no visible technical issues". In any case, "tier 1" is a marketing term that refers to the ranking of companies in terms of prefeability. Those companies whose services are highly preferred are in the TOP TIER of the ranking. After that there is a SECOND TIER which is good if you can't afford the top tier. There have always been people who made their buying decisions based on the NET EFFECT OF SEVERAL PROVIDERS rather than simply evaluating a provider standing alone. It is possible to buy service from two or three second tier providers and get BETTER THAN TIER 1 service. Mindless rankings and classification systems are not much help in making intelligent buying decisions. I really don't understand why people on this list care so much about marleting terminology. --Michael Dillon
