Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
Vince Fuller writes: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:32:57PM +0200, Oliver Bartels wrote: >> Ceterum censeo: Nevertheless this moving-clients application shows >> some demand for a true-location-independend IP-addresses >> announcement feature (provider independend "roaming") in IPv6, as >> in v4 (even thru this isn't the "standard" way, but Connexion is >> anything but standard). Shim etc. is not sufficient ... Ehm, well, Connexion by Boeing is maybe not such a good example for this demand. Leaving aside the question whether there is a business case, I remain unconvinced that using BGP for mobility is even worth the effort. It is obvious that it "worked" for Boeing in IPv4, for some value of "worked", but the touted delay improvements on the terrestrial ISP path (ground station - user's "home" ISP) are probably lost in the noise compared to the 300ms of geostationary. But, hey, it's free - just deaggregate a few /19's worth of "PA" (what's that?) space into /24 and annouce and re-announce at will. Vince has an outline of an excellent solution that would have avoided all the load on the global routing system with (at least) the same performance (provided that the single network/VPN is announced to the Internet from good locations on multiple continents): > One might also imagine that more globally-friendly way to implement > this would have been to build a network (VPN would be adequate) > between the ground stations and assign each plane a prefix out of a > block whose subnets are only dynamically advertsed within that > network/VPN. Doing that would prevent the rest of the global > Internet from having to track 1000+ routing changes per prefix per > day as satellite handoffs are performed. But that would have cost money! Probably just 1% of the marketing budget of the project or 3% of the cost of equipping a single plane with the "bump" for the antenna, but why bother? With IPv4 you get away with advertising de-aggregated /24s from PA space. At one of the Boeing presentations (NANOG or RIPE) I asked the presenter how they coped with ISPs who filter. Instead of responding, he asked me back "are you from AS3303"?. From which I deduce that there are about two ISPs left who filter such more-specifics (AS3303 and us :-). IMHO Connexion by Boeing's BGP hack, while cool, is a good example of an abomination that should have been avoided by having slightly stronger incentives against polluting the global routing system. Where's Sean Doran when you need him? -- Simon (AS559).
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
Marshall Eubanks writes: > In a typical flight Europe / China I believe that there would be > order 10-15 satellite transponder / ground station changes. The > satellite footprints count for more that the geography. What I remember from the Connexion presentations is that they used only four ground stations to cover more or less the entire Northern hemisphere. I think the places were something like Lenk (Switzerland), Moscow, Tokyo, and somewhere in the Central U.S.. So a Europe->China flight should involve just one or two handoffs (Switzerland->Moscow(->Tokyo?)). Each ground station has a different ISP, and the airplane's /24 is re-announced from a different origin AS after the handoff. It's possible that there are additional satellite/transponder changes, but those wouldn't be visible in BGP. -- Simon.
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
>> The comment still applies. Imagine that this system were implemented >> globally on all international/intercontinental air routes. It would still >> be nice to avoid having each of those airplanes cause a globally-visible >> routing update whenever it crosses some geographical boundary. > > The problem is physics: The speed of light is about 300.000km/s in air > and about 200.000km/s in fibre, which means a VPN solution causes an > _additional_ >70ms delay for some additional 7000km VPN distance. If one assumes a well-engineered VPN solution that interconnects the ground stations to "peering" points to the rest of the Internet, then there should be no increase in delay for traffic outbound from the plane toward the Internet - traffic path will still be plane -> ground station -> nearest exit point to Internet. The amount of delay increase for return traffic is hard to quantify; it will depend on how well the Conxion service network/VPN is connected to its upstream providers, how well-connected those providers are to interconnect points to the rest of the Internet, whether shortest-exit routing (or some other "optimized exit routing") is implemented between the various providers, etc. Many of these issues will apply to the current, dynamically-route-every- prefix model, too. In some cases, the VPN will make little or no different in delay; in some cases, it may increase one-way delay a bit. On the upside, worries about more-specific filtering and route-dampening will go away. > No, VPN and NAT and PA and shim are not the solution for todays > mobile communications demands. From the view point of the developer > of such an intercontinental communications system todays internet > technology looks outdated, the BGP re-anouncement is just a hack. > Indeed, RFC1661 is dated July 1994. > > This is just another example for the obvious demand of a true dynamic > routing system beeing capable to handle large numbers of prefixes and > dynamic changes in the routing table. Other demand results from mobile > networks, IPv6 PI etc. > > The demand _is_ there, simply saying "don't use PI, do keep 200 customers > rules (IPv6), don't accept small prefixes, don't permit dynamic changes, > do wait for our perfect shim solution which takes short additional 10 years > to develop, do purely theoretical discussions on geoadressing" as the > "restrictive approach" is not the solution. > > Either the Internet community will find good answers to these demands, > or the markets will find solutions without the Internet community ... > > Ceterum Censeo: BGP_Standard_Update subito, IPv6 PI subito ... If one assumes no changes to ipv6 semantics, it is hard to envision such a solution being possible. "PI routing" degenerates into flat routing and building "a true dynamic routing system beeing capable to handle large numbers of prefixes and dynamic changes in the routing table" is difficult to impossible if one assumes a) a single number space that accomodates both routing information and endpoint-identification (which is a fundamental design assumption in ipv6 as currently specified) and b) continued super-linear growth in the number of unique subnets that are identified using that numbering space. There are smart people who have been looking at how to fix this for more than a decade (some would say that research along these lines dates back to the 1960s...see http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/fuller.html for a recent NANOG presentation on this topic, with pointers to earlier work); virtually all of the designs that have been offered require routing locator/endpoint-id separation. Unfortunately, those who put together the current ipv6 did not choose to follow the locator/endpoint-id separation path. For a variety of reasons, trying to retro-fit the split into ipv6 with something like shim6 is difficult and it running into a lot of resistance. --Vince
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
Hello; On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Vince Fuller wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:28:49AM -0700, Vince Fuller wrote: One might also imagine that more globally-friendly way to implement this would have been to build a network (VPN would be adequate) between the ground stations and assign each plane a prefix out of a block whose subnets are only dynamically advertsed within that network/VPN. Doing that would prevent the rest of the global Internet from having to track 1000 + routing changes per prefix per day as satellite handoffs are performed. As has been said before, and is also readable in that blog entry: the system is supposed to create *one* advertisement change when the plane is crossing from the "Europe" to the "US" ground station (etc.), not 1000+. The comment still applies. Imagine that this system were implemented globally on all international/intercontinental air routes. It would still be nice to avoid having each of those airplanes cause a globally-visible routing update whenever it crosses some geographical boundary. In a typical flight Europe / China I believe that there would be order 10-15 satellite transponder / ground station changes. The satellite footprints count for more that the geography. --Vince Regards Marshall
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
Hello; On Sep 11, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Oliver Bartels wrote: Hi Gert, On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:06:00 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Ummm, well, this is a damn fast plane if it will reach another continent 1843 times per day (or even "per week")... - which should be the only time the BGP announcement moves. Sounds more like "the BGP-follows-plane system has some stability problems". Nack. Probably they are using low or medium earth orbit satellites, which _are_ damn fast in orbit. Otherwise the round trip time would be unacceptably high. I believe that all Connexion support is / was from geostationary satellites. As the whole thing is 3D, some of them might have contact to ground stations on this or the other side of the great lake, depending on their 3D position, even thru the plane travels on a well defined track (probably a 3D circle, too) in just one direction only. Ceterum censeo: Nevertheless this moving-clients application shows some demand for a true-location-independend IP-addresses announcement feature (provider independend "roaming") in IPv6, as in v4 (even thru this isn't the "standard" way, but Connexion is anything but standard). Shim etc. is not sufficient ... That seems like a reasonable conclusion. Kind Regards Oliver Regards Marshall Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:28:49AM -0700, Vince Fuller wrote: > > One might also imagine that more globally-friendly way to implement this > > would have been to build a network (VPN would be adequate) between the > > ground stations and assign each plane a prefix out of a block whose subnets > > are only dynamically advertsed within that network/VPN. Doing that would > > prevent the rest of the global Internet from having to track 1000+ routing > > changes per prefix per day as satellite handoffs are performed. > > As has been said before, and is also readable in that blog entry: the > system is supposed to create *one* advertisement change when the plane > is crossing from the "Europe" to the "US" ground station (etc.), not > 1000+. The comment still applies. Imagine that this system were implemented globally on all international/intercontinental air routes. It would still be nice to avoid having each of those airplanes cause a globally-visible routing update whenever it crosses some geographical boundary. --Vince
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:32:57PM +0200, Oliver Bartels wrote: > Hi Gert, > On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:06:00 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > >Ummm, well, this is a damn fast plane if it will reach another continent > >1843 times per day (or even "per week")... - which should be the only > >time the BGP announcement moves. > > > >Sounds more like "the BGP-follows-plane system has some stability problems". > > Nack. > > Probably they are using low or medium earth orbit satellites, which > _are_ damn fast in orbit. Otherwise the round trip time would be > unacceptably high. > > As the whole thing is 3D, some of them might have contact to > ground stations on this or the other side of the great lake, > depending on their 3D position, even thru the plane travels > on a well defined track (probably a 3D circle, too) in just one > direction only. > > Ceterum censeo: Nevertheless this moving-clients application shows > some demand for a true-location-independend IP-addresses > announcement feature (provider independend "roaming") in IPv6, > as in v4 (even thru this isn't the "standard" way, but Connexion is > anything but standard). Shim etc. is not sufficient ... One might also imagine that more globally-friendly way to implement this would have been to build a network (VPN would be adequate) between the ground stations and assign each plane a prefix out of a block whose subnets are only dynamically advertsed within that network/VPN. Doing that would prevent the rest of the global Internet from having to track 1000+ routing changes per prefix per day as satellite handoffs are performed. --Vince
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Joe Provo wrote: On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:57:10PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic areas. Or is there some other explanation? Detailed at nanog 31 (among other meetings): http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0405/abarbanel.html 2005 detail from a blogger: http://bayosphere.com/node/879 2006 detail from another blogger: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/04/tracking_plane_flight_on_inter.shtml -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE Yep. And they also presented it on this side of the Atlantic, back in May'2004: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-routing-global.pdf Best Regards, ./Carlos Skype: cf916183694 -- Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (196663/675), naming (millions) and... people!"
Re: [OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
There is still interest in this technology at Boeing and elsewhere, and there will probably be a BOF on the problems associated with large mobile networks at the San Diego IETF this Fall. Anyone interested in the technology at the IP level can let me know and I will make sure you get the announcements. As for the business side of it, there are other uses for network connectivity on a modern aircraft besides searching the web. Regards Marshall On Sep 10, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Robert E.Seastrom wrote: Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Duh. Did you ever read the numbers for Connexion? They managed to design a system which cost the airlines up to $1mil per plane to install, and only generated $80k/yr/plane total revenue (thats Boeing revenue not airline revenue). They had an opex of something like $150mil/yr on total revenue of $11mil/yr. Now this is interesting. $80k/year, $25 a shot = 3200 users per aircraft per year. Assume long-haul aircraft that daily average two flights per day, 320 days per year (to keep it easy), that means the average number of users on a flight is... 5. Someone's marketing department was asleep at the switch, I think. Obviously there is no such thing as an FAA certified $50 Linksys WRT54G, but it never fails to amaze me how people are utterly shocked when reality catches up with their wild, unchecked, and stupid spending. :) My recollection is that they were using fairly off the shelf stuff though, 3548s and Aironet 1200s if memory serves. It's poking holes in the fuselage for the antenna, and the satellite antenna itself, that costs the big bucks. ---rob
Re: [OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Duh. Did you ever read the numbers for Connexion? They managed to design a > system which cost the airlines up to $1mil per plane to install, and only > generated $80k/yr/plane total revenue (thats Boeing revenue not airline > revenue). They had an opex of something like $150mil/yr on total revenue > of $11mil/yr. Now this is interesting. $80k/year, $25 a shot = 3200 users per aircraft per year. Assume long-haul aircraft that daily average two flights per day, 320 days per year (to keep it easy), that means the average number of users on a flight is... 5. Someone's marketing department was asleep at the switch, I think. > Obviously there is no such thing as an FAA certified $50 Linksys WRT54G, > but it never fails to amaze me how people are utterly shocked when reality > catches up with their wild, unchecked, and stupid spending. :) My recollection is that they were using fairly off the shelf stuff though, 3548s and Aironet 1200s if memory serves. It's poking holes in the fuselage for the antenna, and the satellite antenna itself, that costs the big bucks. ---rob
Re: [OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 12:24:52PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:08:56 -0500, Netfortius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Just wondering this, myself. I travel fairly frequently between US and > > Europe, > > and Lufthansa was recently my choice, exclusively because of this service. > > Perhaps with the interdiction of computing devices on board (have not > > travelled since the UK incident, so I am not sure if the new rules of > > flying > > naked affect all flights?!?) there won't - obviously - be much of a need > > for > > an Internet connection ... > > > The main issue, from what I read, is that too few airlines followed suit. > In particular, most American airlines were far too strapped financially to > invest in the necessary equipment. Duh. Did you ever read the numbers for Connexion? They managed to design a system which cost the airlines up to $1mil per plane to install, and only generated $80k/yr/plane total revenue (thats Boeing revenue not airline revenue). They had an opex of something like $150mil/yr on total revenue of $11mil/yr. Obviously there is no such thing as an FAA certified $50 Linksys WRT54G, but it never fails to amaze me how people are utterly shocked when reality catches up with their wild, unchecked, and stupid spending. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: [OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:08:56 -0500, Netfortius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just wondering this, myself. I travel fairly frequently between US and > Europe, > and Lufthansa was recently my choice, exclusively because of this service. > Perhaps with the interdiction of computing devices on board (have not > travelled since the UK incident, so I am not sure if the new rules of flying > naked affect all flights?!?) there won't - obviously - be much of a need for > an Internet connection ... > The main issue, from what I read, is that too few airlines followed suit. In particular, most American airlines were far too strapped financially to invest in the necessary equipment. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
[OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
Just wondering this, myself. I travel fairly frequently between US and Europe, and Lufthansa was recently my choice, exclusively because of this service. Perhaps with the interdiction of computing devices on board (have not travelled since the UK incident, so I am not sure if the new rules of flying naked affect all flights?!?) there won't - obviously - be much of a need for an Internet connection ... Stefan On Saturday 09 September 2006 21:43, Brandon Galbraith wrote: > Was it merely not enough customers? or were there other issues? inquiring > minds is all =) > > -brandon
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
Was it merely not enough customers? or were there other issues? inquiring minds is all =)-brandonOn 9/9/06, Michael Painter < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:From their webpage:Service AdvisoryOn Aug. 17, 2006, the Boeing Company announced that a detailed business and market analysis of Connexion by Boeing is complete, and the company has decided to exit the high-speed broadband communications connectivity markets. Boeing will work with its customers tofacilitate an orderly phase out of the Connexion by Boeing service. Passengers traveling on Internet-equipped flights will be able to use the service until it is phased out between now and the end of the year, depending on the airline.- Original Message -From: "Joe Provo" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Hank Nussbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; < nanog@merit.edu>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 6:35 AMSubject: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report >> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:57:10PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>>>> Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing >> off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic>> areas. Or is there some other explanation?>> Detailed at nanog 31 (among other meetings):> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0405/abarbanel.html>> 2005 detail from a blogger:> http://bayosphere.com/node/879>> 2006 detail from another blogger: > http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/04/tracking_plane_flight_on_inter.shtml>> --> RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE >-- Brandon GalbraithEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]AIM: brandong00Voice: 630.400.6992"A true pirate starts drinking before the sun hits the yard-arm. Ya. --thelost"
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
From their webpage: Service Advisory On Aug. 17, 2006, the Boeing Company announced that a detailed business and market analysis of Connexion by Boeing is complete, and the company has decided to exit the high-speed broadband communications connectivity markets. Boeing will work with its customers to facilitate an orderly phase out of the Connexion by Boeing service. Passengers traveling on Internet-equipped flights will be able to use the service until it is phased out between now and the end of the year, depending on the airline. - Original Message - From: "Joe Provo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hank Nussbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:57:10PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic areas. Or is there some other explanation? Detailed at nanog 31 (among other meetings): http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0405/abarbanel.html 2005 detail from a blogger: http://bayosphere.com/node/879 2006 detail from another blogger: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/04/tracking_plane_flight_on_inter.shtml -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:57:10PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing > off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic > areas. Or is there some other explanation? Detailed at nanog 31 (among other meetings): http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0405/abarbanel.html 2005 detail from a blogger: http://bayosphere.com/node/879 2006 detail from another blogger: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/04/tracking_plane_flight_on_inter.shtml -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
If I recall correctly, Todd Underwood over at Renesy did a pretty interesting write-up on this a while back [Later] Here it is: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/04/tracking_plane_flight_on_inter.shtml - ferg -- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is > handing off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over > certain geographic areas. Or is there some other explanation? They presented at NANOG saying they would be re-announcing a /24 per plane as it crosses the ocean. I can't recall if the originating (or transit) ASNs were going to change, but it doesn't seem wholly unreasonable. IMHO, of course. -- TTFN, patrick -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing > off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic > areas. Yes, that was their architecture, originally. My understanding was that they'd subsequently moved to a more complicated system of NATing, but my understanding may be incorrect, or they may not have done so entirely. -Bill
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic areas. Or is there some other explanation? They presented at NANOG saying they would be re-announcing a /24 per plane as it crosses the ocean. I can't recall if the originating (or transit) ASNs were going to change, but it doesn't seem wholly unreasonable. IMHO, of course. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic areas. Or is there some other explanation? TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 4 - 83.210.15.0/24 1843 0.1% AS23918 -- CBB-BGP-IBARAKI Connexion By Boeing Ibaraki AS AS29257 -- CBB-IE-AS Connexion by Boeing Ireland, Ltd. AS30533 -- CONNEXION-BY-BOEING-LTN - Connexion by Boeing AS31050 -- CBB-RU-ASN Connexion by Boeing Eastern Europe, Ltd. AS33697 -- CONNEXION-BY-BOEING-VBC - Connexion by Boeing 17 - 60.253.32.0/24 822 0.1% AS23918 -- CBB-BGP-IBARAKI Connexion By Boeing Ibaraki AS AS30533 -- CONNEXION-BY-BOEING-LTN - Connexion by Boeing AS31050 -- CBB-RU-ASN Connexion by Boeing Eastern Europe, Ltd. AS33697 -- CONNEXION-BY-BOEING-VBC - Connexion by Boeing Hank Nussbacher http://www.interall.co.il
