Re: ix's & prefix registration
Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) writes on 10/15/2003 6:37 AM: This is FUD. To my knowledge, your assertions have been clarified by nixi folks. https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/india-gii/2003-June/004357.html you mean (in fact...i can dare to add here that none of the connecting ISP's has raised an issue on the multilateral peering clause...on the contrary some ISP' want that..)..so there... Yeah, sure. *Some* ISPs want mandatory multilateral, I'm sure. I agree with you that some of nixi exchange policies are not good. But, they also dropped other dangerous policies ( e.g., nixi acting as a govt mandated transit provider.) Also, in nixi case, exchange policies are set by/to/for Indian ISPs (represented in nixi committee.) So, rather than throwing clichés, you should participate in their mailing list and convince them with constructive feedback. Man, a lot of us have given them our opinions, you know that. If they ask us (or better still, ask someone with clue like Bill Woodcock et al) then great. If they go on dancing to their own tune, very well then. The other "ideas" were dropped after a lot of hard work on several people's part. srs -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
Re: ix's & prefix registration
Niels Bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > AMS-IX does not, nor does it require its members to peer with anybody > (including the exchange-supporting network infrastructure). AMS-IX > believes that the decision to peer is up to the individual members. NIXI (http://www.nixi.org) - the national internet exchange of india - seems to enforce a mandatory multilateral peering policy (though their policy, and their setup, sure sounds like a godawful mess, right about now) :( Quoting from their membership agreement (a word doc at http://www.nixi.org/NIXI%20T&C_%20ver_%202.doc) - > Peering Policy of NIXI > > NIXI has adopted a Multilateral peering policy . Member ISPs shall > not refuse to accept traffic from other members. --srs
Re: ix's & prefix registration
> On Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:28 PM, joshua sahala > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the >> registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically, >> do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of >> their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the >> ix? * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nipper, Arnold) [Tue 14 Oct 2003, 18:51 CEST]: > DE-CIX (http://www.de-cix.net) does (see 4.4 > http://www.de-cix.net/info/DE-CIX_technical_requirements.pdf). And > afaik that's also true for LINX, AMS-IX, Xchangepoint, ... Look at > their policies as well. AMS-IX does not, nor does it require its members to peer with anybody (including the exchange-supporting network infrastructure). AMS-IX believes that the decision to peer is up to the individual members. -- Niels.
Re: ix's & prefix registration
On 14 Oct 2003, at 12:36, Bill Woodcock wrote: is this something that an ix could/should worry about? Absolutely not, as that intrudes upon the terms of the commercial relationship between the individual members of the exchange. The HKIX in Hong Kong maintains a an access-list per member on its route server configuration, and mails out copies on a members list periodically so that people can check that their filter is up-to-date. The APE in Auckland and the WIX in Wellington, New Zealand both include route servers which are well-used. Both route servers incorporate route filters for peers which are built from a citylink-operated IRR-like database which speaks RPSL. So while none of these examples illustrate exchange operators requiring any kind of registration of routes (there are no restrictions on direct peering sessions across the exchanges, for example) the popularity of the route servers on these exchanges provides some incentive for peers to publish their export policies. These might be unusual examples, of course. I have done no great survey. Joe
Re: ix's & prefix registration
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Nipper, Arnold wrote: > DE-CIX (http://www.de-cix.net) does (see 4.4 > http://www.de-cix.net/info/DE-CIX_technical_requirements.pdf). And afaik > that's also true for LINX, AMS-IX, Xchangepoint, ... Look at their policies > as well. As far as I've seen Xchangepoint doesn't reference IRR data for MLP use. Regards, Jess. -- Jess Kitchen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.burstfire.net/
Re: ix's & prefix registration
DE-CIX (http://www.de-cix.net) does (see 4.4 http://www.de-cix.net/info/DE-CIX_technical_requirements.pdf). And afaik that's also true for LINX, AMS-IX, Xchangepoint, ... Look at their policies as well. DE-CIX does not monitor this. However if you are using DE-CIX's routeserver your announcements are filtered against your policy (as path lists and ip filter lists). Regards, Arnold On Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:28 PM, joshua sahala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hello to all > > i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the > registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically, > do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of > their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the > ix? if so, how do you/they monitor this? is it left up to the other > providers at the ix to verify that they are peering with someone who > registers their objects? is this something that an ix could/should > worry about? > i know that many providers around the world are increasingly requiring > registration, and that many build their filters from these registrations, > but i have been unable to find anything wrt internet exchanges. > > replies on or off, i will summarize > > thanks > > /joshua > > > "Walk with me through the Universe, > And along the way see how all of us are Connected. > Feast the eyes of your Soul, > On the Love that abounds. > In all places at once, seemingly endless, > Like your own existence." > - Stephen Hawking -
Re: ix's & prefix registration
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, joshua sahala wrote: > i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the > registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically, > do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of > their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the > ix? No, this is not a common practice, although a few of the 350 exchanges out there may do so. > is it left up to the other providers at the ix to verify that they > are peering with someone who registers their objects? Yes, some ISPs verify that their peers' announcements and IRR registered prefixes match. The vast majority do not. > is this something that an ix could/should worry about? Absolutely not, as that intrudes upon the terms of the commercial relationship between the individual members of the exchange. Besides which, the IX has no way of observing or enforcing any such policy without violating the privacy of the members. There is, of course, no reason to believe that members will advertize the same prefixes to a looking-glass, even a private and mandatory one, that they advertize amongst themselves. This is a rat's nest that there's no motive for jumping into. > i know that many providers around the world are increasingly requiring > registration Actually, this trend has been in the opposite direction, decreasing interest in IRRs, for the past six or eight years, to my observation. Perhaps others believe otherwise. -Bill
Re: ix's & prefix registration
to some extent, that would be a -very- nosy ixp. exchange operators often try to limit their liability by staying out of the relationships between peering partners that use the exchange fabric. simply managing the "common areas" has been considered enough of a task for the ixp. (common areas; e.g. the switch-fabric, possibly cross-connects, fabric support infrastructure etc.) > hello to all > > i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the > registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically, > do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of > their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the > ix? if so, how do you/they monitor this? is it left up to the other > providers at the ix to verify that they are peering with someone who > registers their objects? is this something that an ix could/should > worry about? > i know that many providers around the world are increasingly requiring > registration, and that many build their filters from these registrations, > but i have been unable to find anything wrt internet exchanges. > > replies on or off, i will summarize > > thanks > > /joshua > > > "Walk with me through the Universe, > And along the way see how all of us are Connected. > Feast the eyes of your Soul, > On the Love that abounds. > In all places at once, seemingly endless, > Like your own existence." > - Stephen Hawking - > >
ix's & prefix registration
hello to all i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically, do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the ix? if so, how do you/they monitor this? is it left up to the other providers at the ix to verify that they are peering with someone who registers their objects? is this something that an ix could/should worry about? i know that many providers around the world are increasingly requiring registration, and that many build their filters from these registrations, but i have been unable to find anything wrt internet exchanges. replies on or off, i will summarize thanks /joshua "Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence." - Stephen Hawking -
