Small guys with BGP issues

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Seems to me that some people have issues when a thread is taken over.
capiche...

However, it also seems to me that there are people here who are
intelligent engineers who are afraid to speak, due to the size of the
company they work for.

On behalf of the 'small guys', it sucks when you big(ger) guys:

- don't listen to us
- practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it
- speak proudly of decent support, but don't respond to people who
aren't staffed by a tier(x)
- act as though you know something, but won't get out of the textbook
mentality
- again, this isn't a test for ccie, just because were working in
smaller *sp's doesn't mean that we know less than you
- we work hard. We have smaller networks. I bet we defend our border
egress to you than you defend toward us
- if all small guys like me are the same, then the 'big boys' should be
motivated to move forward

Lets take it off topic and off-thread...

This is a big-boy list. Out of the small guys on this big boy list, lets
have a hands-up for who is doing the right thing (v6 & network defence &
protecting their connected networks )...

Steve

2

Steve Bertrand wrote:

Seems to me that some people have issues when a thread is taken over.
capiche...

However, it also seems to me that there are people here who are
intelligent engineers who are afraid to speak, due to the size of the
company they work for.

On behalf of the 'small guys', it sucks when you big(ger) guys:

- don't listen to us
- practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it
- speak proudly of decent support, but don't respond to people who
aren't staffed by a tier(x)
- act as though you know something, but won't get out of the textbook
mentality
- again, this isn't a test for ccie, just because were working in
smaller *sp's doesn't mean that we know less than you
- we work hard. We have smaller networks. I bet we defend our border
egress to you than you defend toward us
- if all small guys like me are the same, then the 'big boys' should be
motivated to move forward

Lets take it off topic and off-thread...

This is a big-boy list. Out of the small guys on this big boy list, lets
have a hands-up for who is doing the right thing (v6 & network defence &
protecting their connected networks )...

Holy shiat,

I can't even deal with the off-list feedback! Thank you!

Politically, unfortunately, I'm not that type. I can't do much there. I
wish that I could make decisions with the company purse, but I can't...

On the other hand, I wish I could direct operations. I know what needs
to be done, and I know how to command people to get there. I *think* I
know how to direct an entire company (given its geo-location) to success
given the area it's in.

Nonetheless, I am where I am, and I like it. I am responsible for what
comes into my network, and what leaves it. I have written an ISP
management system, and ensure/troubleshoot montly revenue streams.

I love my job. I love being an ISP. Unfortunately, my ISP doesn't love
me the same way. ( I can understand the business aspect, but at least
show that you are technically inclined!)

Steve

3

- practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it

Did you mean preach but don't practice it? While I appreciate everyone who "preaches" it, I am not going to complain in the slightest at any "big guy" who practices BCP38. Just the opposite, I'm going to praise them whether they preach it or not.

And this is not the big boy list. This is for all Operators in North America, and many who are not, regardless of size. (Well, I guess we'll exclude the guy who buys are cable/DSL link and "provides" to his mother & father with a LinkSys.)

4

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

- practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it

Did you mean preach but don't practice it? While I appreciate everyone
who "preaches" it, I am not going to complain in the slightest at any
"big guy" who practices BCP38. Just the opposite, I'm going to praise
them whether they preach it or not.

I'm not a political person. Take it for what it is worth.

I personally know people who do both:

- practice but not preach
- preach but don't practice

... however you take my point, I don't care.

I just wanted it to be known that the 'guys' who do practice it should
'God willing' come out and preach it.

And this is not the big boy list. This is for all Operators in North
America, and many who are not, regardless of size. (Well, I guess we'll
exclude the guy who buys are cable/DSL link and "provides" to his mother
& father with a LinkSys.)

eh, -stevieb has much respect for all those who read this list, and when
he posts, feels that the big guys are looking down upon him... hopefully
with approval.

Steve

5

Ok so, without getting into debates over being political, practicing vs
preaching, BCP38, or big guys vs little guys, can you please explain in
clear english what in the name of holy hell you're talking about?

What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you
no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG
about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change
providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails
so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.

6

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

I'm not a political person. Take it for what it is worth.

I personally know people who do both:

- practice but not preach
- preach but don't practice

... however you take my point, I don't care.

I just wanted it to be known that the 'guys' who do practice it should
'God willing' come out and preach it.

And this is not the big boy list. This is for all Operators in North
America, and many who are not, regardless of size. (Well, I guess we'll
exclude the guy who buys are cable/DSL link and "provides" to his mother
& father with a LinkSys.)

eh, -stevieb has much respect for all those who read this list, and when
he posts, feels that the big guys are looking down upon him... hopefully
with approval.

Ok so, without getting into debates over being political, practicing vs
preaching, BCP38, or big guys vs little guys, can you please explain in
clear english what in the name of holy hell you're talking about?

What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you
no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG

Theoretically, I'm not complaining, I'm venting.

This isn't just my DSL provider, its a business class connection
provider who also happens to provide my (hrm.. our) primary Internet
connection.

Are you going to teach me something with a clue bat, or are you going to
beat me to death with the specifics that each prong of a fork carries?

Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails
so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.

My apologies if I haven't been clear. What would you like me to say? If
I can't 'complain' here, where do I go? I think that I've acted
tactfully and responsibly.

What didn't make sense? Enlighten me.

Although I did come here with concerns and questions, I do have a clue
bat of my own to swing in defence...

Steve

7

Sure, I'll give it a brief shot... Some Internet connections are simply
not designed to support customer BGP. When someone says "business class
service" over cable or DSL, typically what they're talking about is
"we'll route your calls to a slightly higher class call center", and
"we'll provide you with 5 e-mail addresses/IPs and 50MB of hosting for
your website instead of just the usual 1 email and 1 dynamic IP".

The DSL gear may very well not be able to speak BGP to a customer at
all. Each provider gets to decide what service they do and don't want to
sell, and your provider has clearly decided they don't want to sell you
BGP. From the providers' point of view, I'm sure this makes perfect
sense. I'd love to get Comcast to speak BGP to my cable modem, but I
have absolutely no delusions that they will ever do so. There is more
than likely nothing you're going to be able to do about it, and the more
you complain about it like this the more likely they are to move you
into the "this guy is a nut and we don't want your business at all"
category.

If you don't like the service you're getting, vote with your money and
buy from someone else. This is quite simply not a NANOG issue, but in
the interests of being helpful the best advice I can give you is this:

"Your request is unreasonable, and you should adjust your expectations
that you'll ever get it from the service you are purchasing".

Sorry if that's not the answer you want. :slight_smile:

8

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

This isn't just my DSL provider, its a business class connection
provider who also happens to provide my (hrm.. our) primary Internet
connection.

Are you going to teach me something with a clue bat, or are you going
to beat me to death with the specifics that each prong of a fork
carries?

Sure, I'll give it a brief shot... Some Internet connections are simply
not designed to support customer BGP. When someone says "business class
service" over cable or DSL, typically what they're talking about is
"we'll route your calls to a slightly higher class call center", and
"we'll provide you with 5 e-mail addresses/IPs and 50MB of hosting for
your website instead of just the usual 1 email and 1 dynamic IP".

The DSL gear may very well not be able to speak BGP to a customer at
all. Each provider gets to decide what service they do and don't want to
sell, and your provider has clearly decided they don't want to sell you
BGP. From the providers' point of view, I'm sure this makes perfect
sense. I'd love to get Comcast to speak BGP to my cable modem, but I
have absolutely no delusions that they will ever do so. There is more
than likely nothing you're going to be able to do about it, and the more
you complain about it like this the more likely they are to move you
into the "this guy is a nut and we don't want your business at all"
category.

Richard,

I appreciate your concern. I would have expected however that you might
have understood that I wasn't asking about some resi-type connection.
Yes, we are small. I would love to be in a position to say that our
100Mb connection qualifies...

Regardless...

If you don't like the service you're getting, vote with your money and
buy from someone else. This is quite simply not a NANOG issue, but in
the interests of being helpful the best advice I can give you is this:

"Your request is unreasonable, and you should adjust your expectations
that you'll ever get it from the service you are purchasing".

Tell me, what can you offer me? Here are my immediate purchasing
qualifications:

- 100Mbps
- space in Torix
- optic, from Toronto, Ontario to Cobourg, Ontario (55 miles)
- gear at both ends

We pay ~$2500 for the fibre and the bandwidth. Get me a deal. I am not
the money man. I don't even want to deal with money. I can't vote with
money, as it's not mine. Believe me, if I could vote with money, I'd be
100% HE.

I'm venting. I'm allowed to vent here. I think I'm qualified to do so.
Even though I can't speak with $, there are those who know my
determination to keep a clean network, and they may be willing to help
me in the future.

Steve

9

Or you could look at alternatives with your provider, ie:

"Ok, so we can't speak BGP over that particular link. May I colocate some
router with you at extra cost and connect to you via -that-, so I may then
speak BGP to you over that and then tunnel my data back to me over your
DSL network?"

That way you don't require your ISP to speak BGP over a DSL link and all
of the headaches they may not be prepared for, and you get control over
your own network.

2c,

Adrian

10

Adrian Chadd wrote:

11

You said business class DSL before, now you're saying 100Mbps. There are
many dozens of providers who will speak BGP with you in 151 Front, you
should have absolutely no trouble finding one to buy from at attractive
prices. Your best bet is to unbundle the backhaul from the transit, that
way you have flexibility to buy bandwidth from who you would like
without being tied to the specific network providing the backhaul. But
you said "gear on both ends", which implies that you have something in
Toronto already?

At any rate this is completely and totally off topic for NANOG, but if
you say the words "I'd like to buy 100Mbps of service with BGP in
Toronto" I'm sure you'll be swarmed with offers.

12

- space in Torix

TorIX is not a place, its actually two switches that form an Internet
exchange. Perhaps you meant 151 Front Street? Do you have your own
suite? Whose suite are you in?

I'm venting. I'm allowed to vent here. I think I'm qualified to do so.

Yes, according to www.ibctech.ca, you advertise that you are "Sage"
level IPv6 qualified individual from Hurricane Electric. If you only
had mentioned that first, no one would have replied to you with such
elementary questions.

That aside, I think you should have started your thread with
explaining the problem you are trying to solve, instead of ranting
about big providers and the ills they cause you. If you are in "torix
space" why aren't you peering at TorIX (I don't see your ASN on the
list)? Out of curiosity, have you contacted anyone off the TorIX
participants list to see if they would be willing to sell IP transit
and peer BGP with you?

If you want a better venting location, try IRC.

Drive Slow (because Cobourg has slow speed limits, especially near the water)

13

Steve Bertrand wrote:

I'm venting. I'm allowed to vent here. I think I'm qualified to do so

Sorry, this is not facebook. You're not allowed to randomly splurt inane and unexplaned rants and complaints.

At the very least it makes you look stupid to your peers, and at worst it will harm your future employement prospects with anyone on the list. Think before you email.

adam.

14

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

I'm not a political person. Take it for what it is worth.

What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you
no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG
about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change
providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails
so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.

Any small ISP's that I may have the privilege to be involved with should have no issues running BGP with a DSL customer if thats what was needed to properly achieve their objectives. I would even do it over a GRE tunnel.

BGP is a tool, not a measuring stick.

Of course that would have more to do with insistence and effort to bring the overall network to the state where it is practical and non dangerous, some hodge-podges just are not conducive.

You can attach a DSL line to any piece of complex gear, it just takes using a bridge. I have attached them to the full range of cisco "small" gear (among others), from 1600 - 7200. They all have ethernet ports and pppoe dialers.

They can come up to speeds of 15/1. You can terminate multiples. You can use them in conjunction with faster lines.

This kind of flexibility is exactly why small ISP's exist.

Bring on the inflexibility! It is lifeblood for the small players and that is what competition is all about.

We can always learn something of value from each other. I completely respect that those who work with larger networks as a matter of course have talents and skills other may not have been able to develop and hone and I believe the reverse is true as well.

I have seen a welcoming and fairly level playing ground at NANOG, both at meetings and on this list.

I suspect most consider whining and responding smackdowns to be distasteful and I would appreciate encouraging anyone with the temptation to do so to please reconsider and spare everyone.

Save your draft, drink your coffee and re-read it before sending.

Joe

15

Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load sharing across disparate links. Gone is the built in hostage situation of having to either use your provider assigned IP's (>%99 of internet connected sites today), or the quantum leap of being an AS with PI space (and the associated technical baggage to configure and manage that beast). End users should have the power to dictate their own routing policies and not suffer thru 'damping', 'urpf', or other policies imposed on how or when their packets come and go. So if you want to use 2 dsl lines and a CDMA modem, or a satellite and a fiber, or 27 dial up modems and a T1, you should be able to do that and the network should work with you to deliver your packets no matter where 'you' connect or how.

    What it's gonna take is new routing paradigms and new thinking about the role of providers and users and a lowering of the barriers between these two for more cooperation in the overall structure of the network. Just like classfull addressing giving way to cidr, I belive hierarchal routing will give way to truely dynamic routing where all participants have equal capabilities over their own domain with no one (or group) of 'providers' having any more or less influence on global reachability for any 'users' who choose to go their own way, and I expect that to be an easy (or even default) choice in the future.

    You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one.

16

While the idea of seamless routing sounds great, so does world peace... I
don't think I will see either in my lifetime. There are some technical
hurdles you will have to solve first.

1st how do I solve security (preventing spoofing and other evil deeds done by
rouge networks).
2nd how can my system scale and achieve stability.
3rd how will my routes work and converge (unstable routes don't work really
well).
4th My system will need to work and scale on a much larger environment than a
lab.
5th How do I test and verify your system.
6th Politics/Layer 8 (think peering wars)
7th How do I propose for routers be able to store (2^128 + 2^32) * x routes in
their routing table, and possibly utilize current hardware (the whole world
isn't going to do a flag day forklift upgrade)
8th How am I going to get anyone to invest money and R&D into my system.

If you have any good idea's we'd love to hear them. I am open to such a
system, but do not think it can realistically happen anytime soon.

17

400 million Joe Sixpacks and their counterparts around the globe, all wanting
to run BGPto multihome the /29 in their basement.

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

18

Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the
purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to
multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of these
said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how they
get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get there.
TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and the
rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any
sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and
then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a
hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate
even farther??

Clue

19

    Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the
Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet
of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network
connections can achieve, automatically, provider independence and
inbound/outbound load sharing across disparate links.

Hey there's always LISP, they even have code...

http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/lisp-charter.html

The largest inequity of all is that cost delta to you when advertise one
more prefix (minor) vs the collective cost to the whole internet of
carrying it.

The fact is that a combination of technical conventions, business
considerations, and social pressures retard the growth in the routing
table to a rate which while not all that desirable from some
perspectives is manageable. It continues to be the case that the
barrier to entry is relatively low as the existance proof of new
entrants routinely shows.

There is in fact nothing other than a little money, time, and a business
need between you and multihoming. The fact that it may not be as cheap
or convenient as some might like is not the product of discrimination...

20

Clue Store wrote:

Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the
purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to
multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of these
said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how they
get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get there.
TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and the
rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any
sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and
then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a
hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate
even farther??
  
It's clear that you have some impatience with deaggregation, and with
cause. However, there are a few flaws in your position. The first is
that you contradicted yourself. If most folks who get a /29 don't care
how they get to and from the Internet, then there won't be a flood of
new /29s. It is the minority who do care how they get to and from the
Internet who will be adding routes. Currently, they are doing so by
getting more address space than they need assigned, so as to have a
block large enough to be heard. If 500 companies are currently
announcing /24s to be heard, but could be moved to /29s, then you still
have 500 route announcements. You just have a lot less waste.

The second is that you said "BGP." Mike didn't say BGP. He said he was
dreaming of the future. That future coudl easily include a lightweight
multihoming protocol, something that informs interested parties of
presence on multiple networks, or allows for extremely fast
reconvergence, so that a second route need only join the routing table
when needed. And he's right; if I want to change my name to Joe, grab a
sixpack, build a rack in my kitchen, and pay two providers for service,
it isn't unreasonable to want an infrastructure that supports my
configuration.

We shouldn't dismiss a dreamer's dream because it is hard, or we can't
do it right now with what we have. The desire to do what is not
currently possible is the source of innovation, and we shouldn't shoot
down innovation because it sounds hard and we don't like it.

-Dave