- eix-wg - mailman.ripe.net

EIX-WG Agenda RIPE 49 - Draft 3
by Fearghas McKay 15 Sep '04

15 Sep '04

Greetings Late additions to the IXP presentations always welcome - 5mins for a first presentation, 2 for an update. As ever if you send presentations to me in advance we can preload the meeting laptop to ensure a quick turnaround. There is still some time in the second slot if anyone has anything else they would like to discuss. Thanks Fearghas Draft Agenda EIX-WG RIPE49 Date: Wednesday September 22nd Time Slots: 11-12:30 & 14:00-15:30 Location: Galleo Room WG Chair: Fearghas McKay Co-Chairs: Christian Panigl & Mike Hughes A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - Approval of minutes from RIPE 48 ISP Session: B. IXP Presentations AMSIX DE-CIX LINX MIX Netnod NIX.CZ VIX XchangePoint IXP Session C. SLAs & Pricing at IXPs - Call for information for research Tomas Marsalak NIX.CZ D. Switching Wish List - Final Call for input Mike Hughes LINX E: Euro-IX Update F. KIX Overview and Future Plan Chang Hun Lee National Computerization Agency (NCA), Korea KIX is the first IX in Korea built in 1996 by NCA, and now KIX is the exchange point for public Internet traffic such as Electronic Government services. Further information can be found at <http://www.kix.ne.kr>http://www.kix.ne.kr. Z. AOB

1 0

EIX-WG Action Points from RIPE 48
by Fearghas McKay 05 May '04

05 May '04

Greetings Following on from the meeting today the EIX-WG has two action points for the NCC relating to meeting organisation: 1 NCC to provide a scribe for the jabber/irc interface at the next meeting, the consensus at the meeting was that there were no issues of impartiality with NCC staff providing the interface. There was one remote participant who mailed me after the meeting who wanted to provide input / interact with the meeting in the first session. At the end of the meeting I asked for any of the remote attendees to mail me if they felt the jabber interface was usefull. 2 The presentation laptop should have software installed that enables powerpoint presentations that contain tiffs to be be displayed rather than generating an error message. Regards Fearghas

1 0

Draft EIX-WG Agenda RIPE 48 & Call for presentations
by Fearghas McKay 20 Apr '04

20 Apr '04

Greetings Please find attached draft agenda for EIX-WG at the RIPE 48 meeting. If you would like to add an agenda item in either session or do an IXP presentation please drop me a mail asap, preferably before April 24th which is the final date for the print version. Thanks Fearghas May 5th St Johns II 11:00-12:30 14:00-15:30 Agenda 11:00-12:30 a Scribe b Agenda Bashing c Minutes from RIPE 46 & 47 IXP Session d Switch List v2.0 - Mike Hughes e IPv6 Address Policy - status update from ARIN - Mike Hughes f ISP - what does an ISP want from IXP - Kurtus Lindquist A panel session with a range of ISPs talking about their requirements from an IXP. g Euro-IX report h Input to the RIPE NCC Activity Plan Lunch 14:00-15:30 ISP Session i IXP Update Presentations *** PLEASE SEND PRESENTATIONS BY NOON MAY 4th *** *** to webmaster(a)ripe.net & fm(a)st-kilda.org *** Xchange Point VIX TOPIX NIX.CZ NetNod NDIX MIX Linx LIPEX DECIX Amsix As ever more brief update presentations welcome. They should be less than 3 minutes if an update and upto 5 mins if a first presentation. =-=-=-=

1 0

RIPE 47 EIX minutes, complete draft
by Fearghas McKay 20 Apr '04

20 Apr '04

Greetings For approval at the RIPE 48 EIX WG meeting next month. Thanks Fearghas RIPE 47 EIX WG minutes - Wednesday, 28 January 2004 Chaired by: Fearghas Mckay <fm(a)st-kilda.org>, WG Chair Location: St. Johns II Attendees: ~ 110 1st session: 14:00 - 16:00 ========================== Scribe: Carsten Schiefner <carsten(a)ripe.net> Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-47/eix-1.wma A. Administrative stuff - John Marks volunteered for Jabber/IRC scribing - agenda approved as proposed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/agendas/eix.html with one addition: LoNAP's presentation after LINX' one B. IXP presentations - AMS-IX, .nl - by Cara Mascini: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-amsix.pdf * organisational update: three new employees, marketing added as a new discipline * recently launched partner program launched and some first PR efforts are first visible signs of these efforts * explanations of the partner program * statistics of last four months * sharp increase in traffic patterns triggered by the recent increases of DSL speeds by the Dutch ISPs * service developments: 10 Mbit prices decreased; new GigE interfaces added; launch of 10 GigE soon, first customer expected in February * new topology, migration is on its way. Detailed update later the week on Friday * there were no questions from the audience - DE-CIX, .de - by Arnold Nipper: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-decix.pdf * legal and administrative update: new spokesmen since September 2004 * DE-CIX General Meeting decided to move DE-CIX from an eco e.V. initiative (eco is the German ISPA) to an own legal body, DE-CIX GmbH * DE-CIX GmbH will be fully owned by eco e.V., eco's CEO Harald Summa is to become this company's CEO, too, with a board of three additional people * new pricing structure under discussion * jump to statistics (technical update postponed): members increased by about 20%, traffic almost doubled ? Multicast & IPv6? ! One new Multicast customer during last 12 months, three or four new IPv6 customers since last meeting, now ~ 20 cutomers in total * explanation of k-root instance deployment in Frankfurt * there were no further questions from the audience - LINX, .uk - by Mike Hughes: [presentation not yet available] * status update: average traffic patterns of 35 Gigs, 140 members (pretty stable), GigE ports increasing, 100 Mbit ports decreasing * managed Private Interconnect services at various locations * technical news: upgrade of Extreme platform done, first experiences with EAPS operations * demand for a 10 GigE native platform increasing although members not totally ready for it. Should be fully integrated with existing platform * "LINX from anywhere" initiative as a marketing tool to also connect remote ISPs * there were no questions from the audience - N-IX, .de - by Kurt Kayser: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-nix.pdf * status and costs update * performance and traffic patterns * current projects: + anycasting e-, l- and m-root being geographically most distant, but only to N-IX peers: first positive effects seen ? With the consent of the respective operators? ! Tried to contact them, but now answers. This is purely optional for the N-IX peers so far as an experiment: no leakage into the global routing table. Negotiations with operators are ongoing. ? Why at all? Because service is designed to get answers from the first one answering that are likely to be the closer ones. ! It's good to have also the most distant ones closer to N-IX in order to accelerate access to them. ! No, the system (DNS) sorts that out. Hardly any improvements to be expected. + VoIP platform being deployed for voice and IP carriers to push the idea, also in combination with ENUM + association DVAP e.V. formed as an exchange platform for exchange point operators + clustering idling hardware in the exchange point's vincinity currently in the documentation phase * there were no questions from the audience - NaMeX, .it - by Daniele Arena: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-namex.pdf * membership and traffic figures * FE and GigE offered via fibre and copper on redundant switch structure * moved to new premesises recently, eight carriers present * running an f-root instance * offering IPv6 and Multicast * joined the test phase of the Italian Public Administration Network * there were no questions from the audience - NDIX, .nl/.de - by Remco van Mook: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-ndix.pdf * German part officially started in November 03, too * remarkable growth in the non-ISP sector * usergroup VLAN a success * German site in Muenster about to be fully deployed, supposed to be operational mid February * there were no questions from the audience - Netnod, .se - by Kurt Erik Lindqvist: * http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-netnod.p… * facts about Netnod * city of Lulea, north of Sweden, planned for GigE; built in cooperation with the city that will provide some funds for the deployment * FDDI eventually switched off totally * private VLAN to be offered * upgrade to 10 GigE in Stockholm and to GigE in Sundsvall * general T&C under review * phasing out DPT 2.5G * TPTEST, a performance test for Swedish customers, is updated * update on financials * services rendered at Netnod sites, distribution of connections used, traffic figures and patterns * update on i-root anycast status ? What about the VoIP project? ! When one connects to Netnod, one gets a Cisco VoIP phone to connect to INOC DBA for free. ? How to get it? ! Go to Netnod's website and fill out the form available there. * there were no further questions from the audience - NIX, .cz - by Josef Chomyn: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-nixcz.pdf * NIX is the only IXP in Prague, founded as an association * 48 members or customers, respectively. Members must be local entities and have voting rights * new fee structure as of January 04 * traffic figures * 6 members doing IPv6 on the peering VLAN * traffic analyser is techically ready, legal implications still under analysis * there were no questions from the audience - VIX, .at - by Christian Panigl: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-vix.pdf * history and status: not many changes * since 2001 on a GigE Diamond platform, some problems recently that got solved rather quickly * number of members and traffic patters per member and port over the years * first site still with the university of Vienna, second site opened 2.5 years ago with InterXion for purposes of redundancy an colo * main VIX characteristics * dedicated VLAN for IPv6 tests with free non-GigE ports until 2004, about twelve members participating * RIPE RIS server on both, the IPv4 and IPv6 VLAN * INOC DBA still being further developed but with low priority due to other, more important activities * peers must be "genuine" ISPs - this might come under review soon * charging structure * plans including the upgrade of the Diamonds to MSM 3 and a bigger trunk between the sites * there were no questions from the audience - Xchangepoint, .uk - by Keith Mitchell: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-wg-updat… * new sites, Frankfurt and Amsterdam, underway and expected to be ready end Q2 04 * significant traffic growth in London, 10 GigE ordered * 140 customers in London, peering interconnect with LoNAP popular * breakdown on the status of the so far four locations * connections still only WITHIN, not between, each metro area * details on Frankfurt deployment * traffic patterns in London, upgrade to 10 GigE * switch malconfiguration causing problems, an idea is contain it on a per-VLAN basis - feedback sought * direct connection to k-root instance and AS * LoNAP interconnect facts and figures ? Shared IPv6 VLAN with LoNAP ever to happen? ! No address space assigned yet, no aother issues. * there were no further questions from the audience - PacketExchange, .uk - by Kier OBrien: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-packetxc… * PacketExchange is a distributed peering point, balanced between content and ISPs * Juniper based MPLS backbone with Ethernet at the edges, service looks like an Ethernet port * some stability problems recently, testing of new vendors' hardware to be finished soon * update on locations * about 367 members, including some high volume US peers * member growth statistics * geographical distribution by city and route, a 10% unit reflects about 3.5 Gig in traffic ? IPv6? ! No Layer 3 service, strictly point-to-point VLAN services. * there were no further questions from the audience - LoNAP, .uk - by James Rice: [presentation not yet available] * LoNAP facts: London based IXP, since 1998, 39 members * recent news: some hardware investments, now ready for 10 Mbit to 10 GigE * memberships fees remain unchanged, still 2,000 GBP per year for one FE and GigE port * joining fee reduced to 500 from origianlly 1,500 GBP including cabling * traffic patters, has more than doubled during last 12 months - now up to 160 MB daily average from about 70 Megs a year ago * there were no questions from the audience - Euro-IX - by Serge Radovcic: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-euroix.p… * facts and aims of Euro-IX * membership figures and developments * update on the Euro-IX database for IXP customers * enhancements to the "members only" pages * Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Netnod) succeeded Christian Panigl (VIX) as chairman * 4th Euro-IX Forum to be held in Berlin on 19 and 20 April 2004, hosted by DE-CIX/eco * 6th Euro-IX General Meeting will be held in conjunction with the Forum * there were no questions from the audience - meeting adjourned for coffee break RIPE Meeting: 47 Working group: EIX Status: Fist draft The EIX Working Group Wednesday 28 January, 16.30 - 18.00 (second session) A. Administrative Matters: Chair: Fearghas Mckay Scribe: Lorenzo Colitti (for RIPE NCC). Participants list circulated B. IXP operator wishlist for switches Mike Hughes: - The purpose of the list is to get together with other IXP operators to speak to switch manufacturers with a single voice. Exchanges are small but high visibility customers. The document has not been revised for a while. The questions are: - Shall we leave implemented items in the list? - Is there new stuff that is required? Keith Mitchell: - Please revise this. We have our own documents, but a common list would be useful. - We should put already implemented items in appendix saying which vendors implement them and which do not. Mike Hughes: - This could be done with a matrix of features vs. vendors. Arien Vijn: - The document should contain info on scalability of some of these features. We don't want important features on the slow path. Mike Hughes: - Yes, good idea. Keith will give us his requirements document. Maybe AMS-IX could share the results of their recent vendor survey. Arien Vijn: - A feature vs. vendor matrix might sound simple, but hard-to-access features (e.g disable acting on BPDUs) should be documented so other members know how it's done. Mike Hughes: - This could be done by adding a note in the matrix. Arien Vijn - Members might also contribute notes on how to enable certain features on specific hardware. Mike Hughes: - We should set up an editorial group for this document. As current editor, I will do this (including a mailing list). We should also include Euro-IX "vendor pressure" people in it. C. Customer-IXP panels Fearghas McKay: - We are looking at doing customer-member charters and see how people can build a set of commmon bullet points that IXPs and ISPs have in their relationship with each other. Is anyone interested in contributing to that work? - Question to the floor: Are there any ISP's here? Show of hands: Only 3. Any views? (?) - Are we talking of SLAs for EIXs? Fearghis McKay: - Not really, more along the lines of service descriptions. "IXPs do this, but not this" Simon Leinen: - In the interests of transparency and competition it would be convenient to go to an IX and say "the others have this, do you have it too?" but a formal approach doesn't seem necessary. Jon Lawrence: - The information exists, all you need to do is look at EIX web sites to find it. Fearghas McKay: - A lot of this can be already be done by looking at the Euro-IX pages. Christian Panigl: - I would like to hear from the ISP community. Is there anything useful for your business? What do you as an ISP see as an essential (new) service that should be deployed by many IXPs? Euro-IX is a closed forum so the ISPs can't participate saying what they want. Small IXPs don't know which services deployed by big ones are essential for ISPs and which are not. Keith Mitchell - The EIX WG meetings are an ideal forum for this. We could invite ISPs to future EIX meetings so they can present what they would like from IX operators. Kurtis Lindqvist: - We did invite 2 ISPs to the Euro-IX meeting in Lisbon. But does it make sense to have a list of ISPs presenting the same needs? Better a list of common questions from ISPs that we can discuss. Fearghas McKay: - Is anyone interested in writing a list of questions? Keith Mitchell: - We can set up a list of questions, but it's the questions we haven't thought of that are interesting. Fearghas McKay: - We can start with a list of questions and take it from there at the next EIX meeting. D. Migration experiences 1. Arnold Nipper: DE-CIX update a) Switch upgrade - We stayed with Cisco products because we have experience with them - During the upgrade one of the old switches crashed due to human error - Lesson: Don't do anything during business hours, even if you've done it 100 times before. - We still have minor problems with 10-100-1000 copper cards on 6548 switches: occasional BGP resets and a stuck port Alexander Koch: - This is not a minor problem, this is serious! b) Moving to new site - Site selection criteria were carrier reachability, financial stability, prices, support. - Chose Telecity - Link between old and new facility not resilient yet - This was much easier than replacing hardware. Karsten Koepp: - How many members in new facility? Arnold Nipper: - No connections yet (facility has been operational for 3-4 weeks). We have to do some promotion. Z. AOB - There was no OB. Meeting closed ~17:15. RIPE 47 EIX WG minutes - Wednesday, 28 January 2004 - first draft Chaired by: Fearghas Mckay <fm(a)st-kilda.org>, WG Chair Location: St. Johns II Attendees: ~ 110 1st session: 14:00 - 16:00 ========================== Scribe: Carsten Schiefner <carsten(a)ripe.net> Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-47/eix-1.wma A. Administrative stuff - John Marks volunteered for Jabber/IRC scribing - agenda approved as proposed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/agendas/eix.html with one addition: LoNAP's presentation after LINX' one B. IXP presentations - AMS-IX, .nl - by Cara Mascini: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-amsix.pdf * organisational update: three new employees, marketing added as a new discipline * recently launched partner program launched and some first PR efforts are first visible signs of these efforts * explanations of the partner program * statistics of last four months * sharp increase in traffic patterns triggered by the recent increases of DSL speeds by the Dutch ISPs * service developments: 10 Mbit prices decreased; new GigE interfaces added; launch of 10 GigE soon, first customer expected in February * new topology, migration is on its way. Detailed update later the week on Friday * there were no questions from the audience - DE-CIX, .de - by Arnold Nipper: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-decix.pdf * legal and administrative update: new spokesmen since September 2004 * DE-CIX General Meeting decided to move DE-CIX from an eco e.V. initiative (eco is the German ISPA) to an own legal body, DE-CIX GmbH * DE-CIX GmbH will be fully owned by eco e.V., eco's CEO Harald Summa is to become this company's CEO, too, with a board of three additional people * new pricing structure under discussion * jump to statistics (technical update postponed): members increased by about 20%, traffic almost doubled ? Multicast & IPv6? ! One new Multicast customer during last 12 months, three or four new IPv6 customers since last meeting, now ~ 20 cutomers in total * explanation of k-root instance deployment in Frankfurt * there were no further questions from the audience - LINX, .uk - by Mike Hughes: [presentation not yet available] * status update: average traffic patterns of 35 Gigs, 140 members (pretty stable), GigE ports increasing, 100 Mbit ports decreasing * managed Private Interconnect services at various locations * technical news: upgrade of Extreme platform done, first experiences with EAPS operations * demand for a 10 GigE native platform increasing although members not totally ready for it. Should be fully integrated with existing platform * "LINX from anywhere" initiative as a marketing tool to also connect remote ISPs * there were no questions from the audience - N-IX, .de - by Kurt Kayser: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-nix.pdf * status and costs update * performance and traffic patterns * current projects: + anycasting e-, l- and m-root being geographically most distant, but only to N-IX peers: first positive effects seen ? With the consent of the respective operators? ! Tried to contact them, but now answers. This is purely optional for the N-IX peers so far as an experiment: no leakage into the global routing table. Negotiations with operators are ongoing. ? Why at all? Because service is designed to get answers from the first one answering that are likely to be the closer ones. ! It's good to have also the most distant ones closer to N-IX in order to accelerate access to them. ! No, the system (DNS) sorts that out. Hardly any improvements to be expected. + VoIP platform being deployed for voice and IP carriers to push the idea, also in combination with ENUM + association DVAP e.V. formed as an exchange platform for exchange point operators + clustering idling hardware in the exchange point's vincinity currently in the documentation phase * there were no questions from the audience - NaMeX, .it - by Daniele Arena: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-namex.pdf * membership and traffic figures * FE and GigE offered via fibre and copper on redundant switch structure * moved to new premesises recently, eight carriers present * running an f-root instance * offering IPv6 and Multicast * joined the test phase of the Italian Public Administration Network * there were no questions from the audience - NDIX, .nl/.de - by Remco van Mook: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-ndix.pdf * German part officially started in November 03, too * remarkable growth in the non-ISP sector * usergroup VLAN a success * German site in Muenster about to be fully deployed, supposed to be operational mid February * there were no questions from the audience - Netnod, .se - by Kurt Erik Lindqvist: * http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-netnod.p… * facts about Netnod * city of Lulea, north of Sweden, planned for GigE; built in cooperation with the city that will provide some funds for the deployment * FDDI eventually switched off totally * private VLAN to be offered * upgrade to 10 GigE in Stockholm and to GigE in Sundsvall * general T&C under review * phasing out DPT 2.5G * TPTEST, a performance test for Swedish customers, is updated * update on financials * services rendered at Netnod sites, distribution of connections used, traffic figures and patterns * update on i-root anycast status ? What about the VoIP project? ! When one connects to Netnod, one gets a Cisco VoIP phone to connect to INOC DBA for free. ? How to get it? ! Go to Netnod's website and fill out the form available there. * there were no further questions from the audience - NIX, .cz - by Josef Chomyn: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-nixcz.pdf * NIX is the only IXP in Prague, founded as an association * 48 members or customers, respectively. Members must be local entities and have voting rights * new fee structure as of January 04 * traffic figures * 6 members doing IPv6 on the peering VLAN * traffic analyser is techically ready, legal implications still under analysis * there were no questions from the audience - VIX, .at - by Christian Panigl: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-vix.pdf * history and status: not many changes * since 2001 on a GigE Diamond platform, some problems recently that got solved rather quickly * number of members and traffic patters per member and port over the years * first site still with the university of Vienna, second site opened 2.5 years ago with InterXion for purposes of redundancy an colo * main VIX characteristics * dedicated VLAN for IPv6 tests with free non-GigE ports until 2004, about twelve members participating * RIPE RIS server on both, the IPv4 and IPv6 VLAN * INOC DBA still being further developed but with low priority due to other, more important activities * peers must be "genuine" ISPs - this might come under review soon * charging structure * plans including the upgrade of the Diamonds to MSM 3 and a bigger trunk between the sites * there were no questions from the audience - Xchangepoint, .uk - by Keith Mitchell: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-wg-updat… * new sites, Frankfurt and Amsterdam, underway and expected to be ready end Q2 04 * significant traffic growth in London, 10 GigE ordered * 140 customers in London, peering interconnect with LoNAP popular * breakdown on the status of the so far four locations * connections still only WITHIN, not between, each metro area * details on Frankfurt deployment * traffic patterns in London, upgrade to 10 GigE * switch malconfiguration causing problems, an idea is contain it on a per-VLAN basis - feedback sought * direct connection to k-root instance and AS * LoNAP interconnect facts and figures ? Shared IPv6 VLAN with LoNAP ever to happen? ! No address space assigned yet, no aother issues. * there were no further questions from the audience - PacketExchange, .uk - by Kier OBrien: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-packetxc… * PacketExchange is a distributed peering point, balanced between content and ISPs * Juniper based MPLS backbone with Ethernet at the edges, service looks like an Ethernet port * some stability problems recently, testing of new vendors' hardware to be finished soon * update on locations * about 367 members, including some high volume US peers * member growth statistics * geographical distribution by city and route, a 10% unit reflects about 3.5 Gig in traffic ? IPv6? ! No Layer 3 service, strictly point-to-point VLAN services. * there were no further questions from the audience - LoNAP, .uk - by James Rice: [presentation not yet available] * LoNAP facts: London based IXP, since 1998, 39 members * recent news: some hardware investments, now ready for 10 Mbit to 10 GigE * memberships fees remain unchanged, still 2,000 GBP per year for one FE and GigE port * joining fee reduced to 500 from origianlly 1,500 GBP including cabling * traffic patters, has more than doubled during last 12 months - now up to 160 MB daily average from about 70 Megs a year ago * there were no questions from the audience - Euro-IX - by Serge Radovcic: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-eix-euroix.p… * facts and aims of Euro-IX * membership figures and developments * update on the Euro-IX database for IXP customers * enhancements to the "members only" pages * Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Netnod) succeeded Christian Panigl (VIX) as chairman * 4th Euro-IX Forum to be held in Berlin on 19 and 20 April 2004, hosted by DE-CIX/eco * 6th Euro-IX General Meeting will be held in conjunction with the Forum * there were no questions from the audience - meeting adjourned for coffee break 2nd session: 16:30 - 18:00 ========================== Scribe: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo(a)ripe.net> Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-47/eix-2.wma A. Administrative Matters: Participants list circulated B. IXP operator wishlist for switches Mike Hughes: - The purpose of the list is to get together with other IXP operators to speak to switch manufacturers with a single voice. Exchanges are small but high visibility customers. The document has not been revised for a while. The questions are: - Shall we leave implemented items in the list? - Is there new stuff that is required? Keith Mitchell: - Please revise this. We have our own documents, but a common list would be useful. - We should put already implemented items in appendix saying which vendors implement them and which do not. Mike Hughes: - This could be done with a matrix of features vs. vendors. Arien Vijn: - The document should contain info on scalability of some of these features. We don't want important features on the slow path. Mike Hughes: - Yes, good idea. Keith will give us his requirements document. Maybe AMS-IX could share the results of their recent vendor survey. Arien Vijn: - A feature vs. vendor matrix might sound simple, but hard-to-access features (e.g disable acting on BPDUs) should be documented so other members know how it's done. Mike Hughes: - This could be done by adding a note in the matrix. Arien Vijn - Members might also contribute notes on how to enable certain features on specific hardware. Mike Hughes: - We should set up an editorial group for this document. As current editor, I will do this (including a mailing list). We should also include Euro-IX "vendor pressure" people in it. C. Customer-IXP panels Fearghas McKay: - We are looking at doing customer-member charters and see how people can build a set of commmon bullet points that IXPs and ISPs have in their relationship with each other. Is anyone interested in contributing to that work? - Question to the floor: Are there any ISP's here? Show of hands: Only 3. Any views? (?) - Are we talking of SLAs for EIXs? Fearghis McKay: - Not really, more along the lines of service descriptions. "IXPs do this, but not this" Simon Leinen: - In the interests of transparency and competition it would be convenient to go to an IX and say "the others have this, do you have it too?" but a formal approach doesn't seem necessary. Jon Lawrence: - The information exists, all you need to do is look at EIX web sites to find it. Fearghas McKay: - A lot of this can be already be done by looking at the Euro-IX pages. Christian Panigl: - I would like to hear from the ISP community. Is there anything useful for your business? What do you as an ISP see as an essential (new) service that should be deployed by many IXPs? Euro-IX is a closed forum so the ISPs can't participate saying what they want. Small IXPs don't know which services deployed by big ones are essential for ISPs and which are not. Keith Mitchell - The EIX WG meetings are an ideal forum for this. We could invite ISPs to future EIX meetings so they can present what they would like from IX operators. Kurtis Lindqvist: - We did invite 2 ISPs to the Euro-IX meeting in Lisbon. But does it make sense to have a list of ISPs presenting the same needs? Better a list of common questions from ISPs that we can discuss. Fearghas McKay: - Is anyone interested in writing a list of questions? Keith Mitchell: - We can set up a list of questions, but it's the questions we haven't thought of that are interesting. Fearghas McKay: - We can start with a list of questions and take it from there at the next EIX meeting. D. Migration experiences 1. Arnold Nipper: DE-CIX update a) Switch upgrade - We stayed with Cisco products because we have experience with them - During the upgrade one of the old switches crashed due to human error - Lesson: Don't do anything during business hours, even if you've done it 100 times before. - We still have minor problems with 10-100-1000 copper cards on 6548 switches: occasional BGP resets and a stuck port Alexander Koch: - This is not a minor problem, this is serious! b) Moving to new site - Site selection criteria were carrier reachability, financial stability, prices, support. - Chose Telecity - Link between old and new facility not resilient yet - This was much easier than replacing hardware. Karsten Koepp: - How many members in new facility? Arnold Nipper: - No connections yet (facility has been operational for 3-4 weeks). We have to do some promotion. Z. AOB - There was no OB. Meeting closed ~17:15.

1 0

RIPE 46 EIX minutes - full
by Fearghas McKay 20 Apr '04

20 Apr '04

Greetings Here are the final minutes from the RIPE 46 meeting - we are still waiting for one presentation but we propose to approve these minutes at the RIPE48 meeting next month. Thanks Fearghas RIPE 46 EIX WG minutes - Wednesday, 5 September 2003 Chaired by: Mike Hughes <mike(a)linx.net>, WG Co-Chair Scribe: Carsten Schiefner <carsten(a)ripe.net> Location: St. Johns II Attendees: 108 Abstract ======== Trends to be seen were: - steady growth - GE or even 10 GE deployed more and more, FE not even available any longer at some IXPs - IPv6 widely deployed - the larger IXP tend to have multiple locations - ongoing evaluation of IXPs' current setup and exploration of future possibilities => no stand-still - some IXPs also host ccTLD secondaries - one IXP consortium also pursues social exchange to foster the co-operation and collaboration with Eastern European IXPs and ISPs There was a brief discussion re. the issue of IPv6 address space not being allowed to be globally advertised by the respective policy. Demand was expressed to alingn and harmonise the policy with both, the other RIRs and existing IPv4 policies. Furthermore, it was suggeted to continue this discussion on the mailing list. 2nd session (after lunch) covered the following presentations: - an update on Euro-IX, the IXP association. Euro-IX intends to support the developement of Quagga with some funds, Quagga is the successor of Zebra, a route server. Also, Euro-IX is about to deploy a peering matrix that will easily give acces to information on which AS is present where. - on the Inter-Provider Traffic Analyzer. This tool uses past data and statistical calculations to detect anomalies in traffic patterns. Useful to become aware of short term glitches, the tool operates on the physical layer. - the anycast deployments of the F, I and K root servers by Netnod, ISC, and the RIPE NCC, respectively. The slightly different strategies were explained which were felt as a strength. However, it was also felt that some coordination would be useful to prevent deployment only at places that have an excellent coverage already anyways. - a brief reminder of the global IXP database maintained by Packet Clearing House and its need to get updates to remain uptodate. It was explicitly mentioned that it also carries "gossip" and not only verified information. The last agenda item covered input/output with the Address Policy and the NCC Services WGs which there was none of. 1st session: 11:00 - 12:30 ========================== Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/eix-1a.wma A. Administrative stuff - apologies from Fearghas McKay, WG Chair - agenda approved as proposed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/agendas/eix.html B. IXP presentations - Trends to be seen in the presentations from eleven European IXPs were: * steady growth * GE or even 10 GE deployed more and more, FE not even available any longer at some IXPs * IPv6 widely deployed * the larger IXP tend to have multiple locations * ongoing evaluation of IXPs' current setup and exploration of future possibilities => no stand-still * some IXPs also host ccTLD secondaries * one IXP consortium also pursues social exchange to foster the co-operation and collaboration with Eastern European IXPs and ISPs - Netnod, .se - by Kurt Erik Lindqvist: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-netnod.p… * update on Netnod and its activities * update on technical equipment available at the respective sites * update on (planned) developments in both, administrative and technical areas * update on statistics and traffic patterns * there were no questions from the audience, one observation though: use IP phones to contact not just Netnod, but also other IXPs and providers - AMS-IX, .nl - by Henk Steenman: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-amsix.pdf * overview of facts and figures * overview of the three main VLAN services: Peering, GRX and MDX * other services are VLANs for Closed User Groups and for Private Interconnect, furthermore the hosting of secondary ccTLD servers * overview of the current infrastructure and a typical traffic pattern during a week * progress: + renumbering all connections from a /24 to /23 + migration to a next generation platform, replacing the current circle architecture by a star based one. This will provide better scalability and stability and allow to offer trunked x * 1 GE and 10 GE connections + overview of the new topology * next AMS-IX tech meeting to be held in the morning of 24 September, the general meeting in the afternoon, including the election of new board members ? Will the two switches be in the same building? ! No, they will be in different buildings, about 25 km apart. - INEX, .ie - by Brian Boyle: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-inex.pdf * overview of facts and figures: + modeled on LINX * INEX services are IP switching and a framework to facilitate peering and transit, furthermore statistics * INEX news are a new GM, Barry Rhodes, IPv6-readiness, GE enabled, and a new tariff system * the statistics show a steady growth annd considerably less traffic during weekends * overview of the different types of charges and the organisation itself ? When was IPv6 started? ! No detailed information, but earlier this year. - TELEHOUSE/CERN (NYIIX/LAIIX/CIXP), .us & .ch - by Akio Sugeno & Paolo Moroni: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-cern.pdf * overview of NYIIX and LAIIX facts and figures * f.root-servers.net instances deployed recently at both locations * second NYIIX site in operation since July 2003 * customers tend to privately peer via NYIIX as L2 transport became recently considerably cheaper than in-building peering * customers join NYIIX via EoMPLS from very remote places * overview of CIXP facts, figures and recent operational issues * inter-site VLAN services and access to an NTP server are available to CIXP members, IPv6 is about to be deployed * no link or relationship to Zurich based Telehouse Internet Exchange (TIX) ? Were there any operational issues at NYIIX associated with the recent power outage in the north-east of the US? ! No - NYIIX runs back-up generators. ? Is there any concern by the building management running the in-building peering facilities that customers actually use a competitor? ! No information. - N-IX, .de - by Kurt Kayser: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-nix.pdf * overview of facts and figures: + only GE ports offered + private VLANs recommended, e.g. to deliver on SLAs * overview of fees, eight carriers in house * 2nd location in planning * summary + medium sized regional exchange + no membership + extremly low costs + maximum performance * no issues with n-ix.cz because of name clash * there were no questions from the audience - ECIX, .de - by Jan Czmok: * ECIX formerly known as Berlin Internet Exchange * name change necessary to accomodate some changes * ECIX is active in Berlin and Dusseldorf, both location are up and running and ready for peering * member of IKO * aim is to provide local exchange for ISPs * ECIX members sum up to currently five, more to come * IPv4 and v6 ready * FE and GE, SX or LX, available * more information available on the website at: http://www.ecix.de/ * IKO stands for "Internet-Knoten Osteuropa". It is meant to build social networks amongst and with individuals from carriers operating in eastern European countries, in particular those accessing the European Union * IKO was founded in 2003 and currently has twelve members * main office in Berlin, branch office in Wroclaw * more information available on the website at: http://www.iko-ev.org/ ? What is a social network? ! Intent is to create awareness amongst ISPs and carriers in regard to cooperation across borders; currently most of the traffic from eastern European countries is seen to be routed via Scandinavia on one or two routes. Alternative and additional peeerings are about to be deployed in collaboration with people working at carriers and IXPs. Aim is a more diverse structure. ? What are the associated costs and fees for IKO? ! [by Stefan Wahl] Currently being set, will not be a threshold. Basically meant to cover costs occuring from meetings etc. Check the website. ? Are the two exchange locations connected in some sense or the other? ! No, they are complete separate. Berlin is focussed on eastern Europe, when Dusseldorf is ment to be a local/regional exchange. - MIX, .it - by Valeria Rossi: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-mix.pdf * overview of facts and figures * fully operational IPv6 test bed since May 2003, dedicated VLAN for four testing members * Routing Information Service and Test Traffic Measurement to be installed in September 2003 * MIX will also host an instance of i.root-servers.net * other services currently deployed are an NTP service, the Traffic Analyser (see separate presentation), a Member Statistics History and Multicast * there were no questions from the audience - Xchangepoint, .uk - by Keith Mitchell: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-wg-updat… * overview of facts and figures: + European expansion funding secured + new CEO: Richard Almeida + LoNAP interconnect extended * expansion to Netherlands and Germany initially, decision where to go live first (Amsterdam or Frankfurt) to be expected soon * feedback on preferred cities or sites welcome * overview of locations (current and planned) and customer base, growth and services they use * Xchangepoint will not connect cities! * overview of the interconnect with LoNAP: + to date only point-to-point private VLANs + 12 XchangePoint customers and 8 LoNAP members participating: total 29 VLANs * presentation slotted in for the 2nd session on the new European Union telco regulation that came into force in July 2003: postponed to RIPE 47 as it is quite a bit of reading regarding access and dominant market position etc. IXPs will probably not be exempted. However, commenting would be too premature at this very moment * there were no questions from the audience [chairmanship passed on to Christian Panigl] - LINX, .uk - by Mike Hughes: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-linx.pdf * overview of facts and figures * overview of next year's pricing scheme: + increased weight towards traffic, lesss weight on mere ports + membership and joining fees be reduced by 25% * other developments include: + electronic voting by the LINX members + members' request to deploy optional(!) multi-lateral route reflectors + the possibility to deploy BENTO * enabling anycast for i.root-servers.net (LINX hosts its first and so far only instance) went smooth * secondarying ccTLDs such as .at. and be * there were no questions from the audience [chairmanship taken back from Christian Panigl] - NIX, .cz - by Josef Chomyn: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-nixcz.pdf * overview of facts, figures and conditions, e.g. the difference between members (legal entities in the Czech Republic) and customers (others) * outline of the 2004 fee structure * outline of the Cisco-based infrastructure * IPv6-ready. NIX wants to have public servers, e.g. a web server, on the IPv6 network - according to the current policy this is not possible as IXP /48s should not be publically annnounced * developments include a traffic analyser as a result of a diploma thesis (suprising results, revealed a lot of unwanted traffic caused by misconfigurations on the members' side and the replacement of Linux-based routers with Cisco for NIX' own AS and infrastructure ? (Bill Woodcock) IPv6 space allocated to IXPs should not be announced to anywhere else on the Internet. Current efforts to harmonise policies across the four RIRs - APNIC recently removed this requirement. What is the feeling of the audience about it? ! (Keith Mitchell) Policies should be harmonised. However, to his understanding the current RIPE policy is not prohibitive, but merely states that global routability is not ensured. ! (Lars-Johan Liman) Announcing an IXP's network can create quite complicated error situations, policy should follow operational issues. ! (Arien Vijn) Ditto, issues were to solved at AMS-IX only´ yesterday resulting from a global announcement. ! (Keith Mitchell) Should be up to the IXP operator to decide, rather than to the registry. Also it would seem to be logical to have a similar IPv4 policy, too. Harmonisation seems to be necessary. ! (Mike Hughes) Ditto - tell your customers to defend themselves against more specific routes. ! (Bernard Tuy) No more specific prefixes than /32s should be announced - so the /48s of IXPs just can't be announced according to the policy. ! (Mike Hughes) /32 rule is assignment policy that doesn't say anything about announcements. Do not mix up policy and operational issues! ? (Ruediger Volk) Are the servers supposed to sit on the peering network or is a separate network envisaged? If former is pursued: better keep out of it! ! (Josef Chomyn) Servers migrated from various ISPs to IXP location one by one. With IPv4 there is no problem: a /24 for the peering mesh, another /24 for the servers acting as a customer towards the IXP. This just not possible with IPv6. What to do? ! (Mike Hughes) This appears to be an address policy issue that may need to be reviewed. Discussion should continue on the mailing list if needed. ! (Henk Steenman) Take addresses from more than one connected ISPs and assign multiple addresses to each server. AMS-IX did so and can provide a document outlining this. 2nd session: 14:00 - 15:30 ========================== Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/eix-2a.wma - LoNAP, .uk - by James Rice: * LoNAP established in 1998, now in three premises * 100 Mbit and 1 Gbit connections available * switching fabric is Cisco based * several VLANs defined, such as for IPv4 multicast * fee structure on a per-year basis, includes ports an VLANs * one-off joining fee, includes the cabling etc. * LoNAP has 42 members at the moment, slightly increasing * multicast fabric collapsed into a VLAN * IPv6: three members peering with the route collector at the moment, on the same peering fabric in a separate VLAN * point-to-point private VLANs with Xchangepoint to be expanded to IPv6 as well * there were no questions from the audience - Euro-IX - by Serge Radovcic: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-euroix.p… * about Euro-IX itself: aims etc. * overview of facts and figures * IXPs to join Euro-IX: contact Serge or Christian Panigl * the database on the website lists more than 1,300 IXP peers now * an IXP peering matrix is about to be deployed soon that will easily give acces to information on which AS is present where * information on the switches being used by member IXPs to be found on the members-only pages * Fearghas McKay represented Euro-IX at the 2nd Latin American Regional NAP meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina + some Latin American NAPs expressed interest in visiting European IXPs * announcement of the 3rd Euro-IX Forum on 3rd and 4th of November in Lisbon, Portugal * Euro-IX' General Meeting to be held in conjunction with the Forum + three board seats becoming vacant to be filled ! (Christian Panigl) Euro-IX intends to support the developement of Quagga with some funds, Quagga is the successor of Zebra, a route server - Inter-Providers Traffic Analyzer - by Matheo Labanti: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-mix-anal… * a tool that uses past data and statistical calculations to detect anomalies and failures in traffic patterns * Useful to become aware of short term glitches * the tool operates on the physical layer * brief overview of the components and how they work together; full blown presentation to be given during Euro-IX Forum in November * examples were shown * there were no questions from the audience - Anycasting f.root-servers.net - by Joao Damas: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-dn-f-root.pdf * it is about improving DNS infrastructure and user experience, but not about competition * technical setup explained in detail at: http://www.isc.org/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt * distinction between 'global nodes' (no restrictions on BGP announcements) and 'local nodes' (no-export community), the latter preferrably to be installed at IXPs. Reason is that (D)DoS attacks often do not affect su much the box itself, but the bandwidth of a particular ISP. This setup ensures that even if one ISP goes down, the others still get the service * explanation of the general deployment scheme: black box principle connected to the IXP with several servers inside, one of them acting only as a monitoring and control box with OOB accces from a Management Transit Provider to the consoles of the servers * all nodes announce f's /24 and AS; additionally they have a second /24 and AS each, provided by the Management Transit Provider, to access them separately * two global nodes in San Francisco and Palo Alto with OSPF load balancing * various local ones on all five continents already deployed, more to come * there were no questions from the audience - Anycasting i.root-servers.net - by Kurt Erik Lindqvist: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-rootserv… * i is operated by Autonomica, a 100% subsidiary of Netnod * again, anycast deployment is no race to outcompete other root server operators * plan 20 have 20 - 25 instances for i within a year * two strategies: operated by Netnod itself with own equipment, but also in cooperation with Packet Clearing House * two types of nodes: at IXPs and with ISPs, focus is on IXPs. ISPs would be large Tier 1 providers * site should provide about eight units rack space, power and hands-on-site; preferrably also a prefix and some bandwidth from the local host to manage the node * no no-export communities, up to the peers to decide about their announcement strategies. pros and cons for this, though * Netnod provides the hardware, but decided not to publish the detailed technical setup * plans to provide anycast for any TLD out of this infrastructure * short desription of where instances are currently deployed and what is planned for the near future ? (Henk Steenman) Criterias to pick a loctaion? ! No real criteria, traffic flow analysis could be one. However, it turned out to be almost impossible for Netnod to do. So major "Internet impact" sites are a pick, but also where a local community will benefit from the deployment ? (Christian Panigl) One reason for anycasting is to catch (D)DoS attacks. Woudn't it make sense to have instances close to where these attacks mainly originate from? ! That is why Netnod goes to large IXPs and Tier 1 providers to pick up the traffaic as early - or close to the source, respectively - as possible. Another incentive to go to places with higher RTTs ? Financial aspects? ! No investment by the local host neede, all is paid for by Netnod, except for costs such as rack space, power or transit - Anycasting k.root-servers.net - by Andrei Robachevsky: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-k-anycas… * two instances deployed at LINX and AMS-IX * cluster of two servers with NSD and a sniffer box * global reachability * funded by the RIPE NCC, AMS-IX provides 1G port * objectives are the improvement of access to k, the impact isolation of an external (D)DoS attack and the impact localisation of a local one * locations likely to be IXPs, hosted and fully funded by a neutral party with an open peering policy * operations exclusively performed by the RIPE NCC * single box solution, capable of handling six times the average load, with DNS server, router and sniffer * also here, next to the service network (local, but also global if coordinated) there is a management network * announcement of a more in-depth discussion later this day and a next day's presentation on technical setup and experience gained ? (Keith Mitchell) Own AS per instance? ! Own AS for k, regardless the instance. ? (Rob Blokzijl) Coordination amongst the operators? All tend to go to large IXPs: does that create complications? ! Actually not. One of the goals is to mitigate (D)DoS attacks, so an attack only on k will not harm i - even in the same location. Also, the models are different. ! (Rob Blokzijl) Differences in approach are a strength, also deployment for local communities. ! (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Some level of coodination. However, only three present here, but more actually doing anycast. ! (Rob Blokzijl) Good development, also for political reasons: makes it impossible to hijack or take dwon the root. ! (Lars-Johan Leman) Some overlap is good, but not a total overlap. The own interests of the IXPs would prevent this anyways by balancing it out. ! (Keith Mitchell) Coordination could be organised by ICANN's RSSAC, also off-line security should be considered. ! (Lars-Johan Leman) RSSAC has been incapable to give advise, that is why the operatorts themselves do it. ! (Andrei Robachevsky) IXPs to ccordinate location of two instances themselves, considering the type of service they host. ? How much for a k instance and how many are planned? ! (Andrei Robachevsky) In the order of EUR 5,000 per box, some 15, maybe even 20 planned. Global reachability as a requirement will come at a later stage, then probably at net topologically aequidistant locations. ! (Joao Damas) Aequidistance might be a problem. - IXP database - by Bill Woodcock: http://www.pch.net/resources/data/exchange-points/ * Packet Clearing House mainatines and publishes an EXCEL spreadsheet covering all IXPs around the planet * regularly updated, request to send in updates * carries also gossip, not only hard facts as it is sometimes hard to find out about an IXP * there were no questions from the audience - No exchange with either Address Policy WG or NCC Services WG. - No AOB. End of RIPE 46 EIX WG meeting.

1 0

Call for Agenda Items
by Fearghas McKay 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

Greetings The next EIX meeting is being held at the RIPE47 meeting on Wednesday 28th Jan in the two afternoon slots. As before we will have the IXP presentation sessions in the first slot and other items in the second. Nearly Final Agenda EIX A. Administrative Matters - scribe - volunteer for Jabber/IRC interface - list of participants - agenda bashing - minutes of previous meeting B. IXP Presentations AMSIX DECIX LINX NaMeX NDIX NetNOD NIX VIX Xchange Point Packet Exchange C. Euro-IX update D. IXP Upgrade Exeriences DECIX NDIX E. Switching Wish List v. 2.0 Z. AOB As usual we will try and take presentations up to the beginning of meeting but earlier is better for planning. Please will all presenters send me and mailto:webmaster@ripe.net a copy of their presentation in advance so we can preload the meeting laptop/filestore. If you are hoping to attend the meeting remotely via the new jabber irc channel and you may like to see if find a volunteer to act ast the local scribe as the NCC will not be providing a fallback 'volunteer'. Fearghas

1 0

Call for Agenda Items
by Fearghas McKay 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

Greetings The next EIX meeting is being held at the RIPE47 meeting on Wednesday 28th Jan in the two afternoon slots. As before we will have the IXP presentation sessions in the first slot and other items in the second. Draft Agenda EIX A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - minutes of previous meeting B. IXP Presentations C. Euro-IX presentation Z. AOB As usual we will try and take presentations up to the beginning of meeting but earlier is better for planning. Please will all presenters send me a copy of their presentation in advance so we can preload the meeting laptop. See you in two weeks time! Fearghas

1 0

RIPE 46 EIX minutes
by Fearghas McKay 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

Greetings Here are the minutes for the last RIPE 46 meeting. Carsten is still looking for a couple of presentations from people, he will be chasing you at RIPE47 :-) Thanks to Carsten for taking the minutes. Fearghas ---- RIPE 46 EIX WG minutes - Wednesday, 5 September 2003 Chaired by: Mike Hughes <mike(a)linx.net>, WG Co-Chair Scribe: Carsten Schiefner <carsten(a)ripe.net> Location: St. Johns II Attendees: 108 Abstract ======== Trends to be seen were: - steady growth - GE or even 10 GE deployed more and more, FE not even available any longer at some IXPs - IPv6 widely deployed - the larger IXP tend to have multiple locations - ongoing evaluation of IXPs' current setup and exploration of future possibilities => no stand-still - some IXPs also host ccTLD secondaries - one IXP consortium also pursues social exchange to foster the co-operation and collaboration with Eastern European IXPs and ISPs There was a brief discussion re. the issue of IPv6 address space not being allowed to be globally advertised by the respective policy. Demand was expressed to alingn and harmonise the policy with both, the other RIRs and existing IPv4 policies. Furthermore, it was suggeted to continue this discussion on the mailing list. 2nd session (after lunch) covered the following presentations: - an update on Euro-IX, the IXP association. Euro-IX intends to support the developement of Quagga with some funds, Quagga is the successor of Zebra, a route server. Also, Euro-IX is about to deploy a peering matrix that will easily give acces to information on which AS is present where. - on the Inter-Provider Traffic Analyzer. This tool uses past data and statistical calculations to detect anomalies in traffic patterns. Useful to become aware of short term glitches, the tool operates on the physical layer. - the anycast deployments of the F, I and K root servers by Netnod, ISC, and the RIPE NCC, respectively. The slightly different strategies were explained which were felt as a strength. However, it was also felt that some coordination would be useful to prevent deployment only at places that have an excellent coverage already anyways. - a brief reminder of the global IXP database maintained by Packet Clearing House and its need to get updates to remain uptodate. It was explicitly mentioned that it also carries "gossip" and not only verified information. The last agenda item covered input/output with the Address Policy and the NCC Services WGs which there was none of. 1st session: 11:00 - 12:30 ========================== Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/eix-1a.wma A. Administrative stuff - apologies from Fearghas McKay, WG Chair - agenda approved as proposed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/agendas/eix.html B. IXP presentations - Trends to be seen in the presentations from eleven European IXPs were: * steady growth * GE or even 10 GE deployed more and more, FE not even available any longer at some IXPs * IPv6 widely deployed * the larger IXP tend to have multiple locations * ongoing evaluation of IXPs' current setup and exploration of future possibilities => no stand-still * some IXPs also host ccTLD secondaries * one IXP consortium also pursues social exchange to foster the co-operation and collaboration with Eastern European IXPs and ISPs - Netnod, .se - by Kurt Erik Lindqvist: * ??? * there were no questions from the audience, one observation though: use IP phones to contact not just Netnod, but also other IXPs and providers - AMS-IX, .nl - by Henk Steenman: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-amsix.pdf * overview of facts and figures * overview of the three main VLAN services: Peering, GRX and MDX * other services are VLANs for Closed User Groups and for Private Interconnect, furthermore the hosting of secondary ccTLD servers * overview of the current infrastructure and a typical traffic pattern during a week * progress: + renumbering all connections from a /24 to /23 + migration to a next generation platform, replacing the current circle architecture by a star based one. This will provide better scalability and stability and allow to offer trunked x * 1 GE and 10 GE connections + overview of the new topology * next AMS-IX tech meeting to be held in the morning of 24 September, the general meeting in the afternoon, including the election of new board members ? Will the two switches be in the same building? ! No, they will be in different buildings, about 25 km apart. - INEX, .ie - by Brian Boyle: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-inex.pdf * overview of facts and figures: + modeled on LINX * INEX services are IP switching and a framework to facilitate peering and transit, furthermore statistics * INEX news are a new GM, Barry Rhodes, IPv6-readiness, GE enabled, and a new tariff system * the statistics show a steady growth annd considerably less traffic during weekends * overview of the different types of charges and the organisation itself ? When was IPv6 started? ! No detailed information, but earlier this year. - TELEHOUSE/CERN (NYIIX/LAIIX/CIXP), .us & .ch - by Akio Sugeno & Paolo Moroni: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-cern.pdf * overview of NYIIX and LAIIX facts and figures * f.root-servers.net instances deployed recently at both locations * second NYIIX site in operation since July 2003 * customers tend to privately peer via NYIIX as L2 transport became recently considerably cheaper than in-building peering * customers join NYIIX via EoMPLS from very remote places * overview of CIXP facts, figures and recent operational issues * inter-site VLAN services and access to an NTP server are available to CIXP members, IPv6 is about to be deployed * no link or relationship to Zurich based Telehouse Internet Exchange (TIX) ? Were there any operational issues at NYIIX associated with the recent power outage in the north-east of the US? ! No - NYIIX runs back-up generators. ? Is there any concern by the building management running the in-building peering facilities that customers actually use a competitor? ! No information. - N-IX, .de - by Kurt Kayser: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-nix.pdf * overview of facts and figures: + only GE ports offered + private VLANs recommended, e.g. to deliver on SLAs * overview of fees, eight carriers in house * 2nd location in planning * summary + medium sized regional exchange + no membership + extremly low costs + maximum performance * no issues with n-ix.cz because of name clash * there were no questions from the audience - ECIX, .de - by Jan Czmok: * ECIX formerly known as Berlin Internet Exchange * name change necessary to accomodate some changes * ECIX is active in Berlin and Dusseldorf, both location are up and running and ready for peering * member of IKO * aim is to provide local exchange for ISPs * ECIX members sum up to currently five, more to come * IPv4 and v6 ready * FE and GE, SX or LX, available * more information available on the website at: http://www.ecix.de/ * IKO stands for "Internet-Knoten Osteuropa". It is meant to build social networks amongst and with individuals from carriers operating in eastern European countries, in particular those accessing the European Union * IKO was founded in 2003 and currently has twelve members * main office in Berlin, branch office in Wroclaw * more information available on the website at: http://www.iko-ev.org/ ? What is a social network? ! Intent is to create awareness amongst ISPs and carriers in regard to cooperation across borders; currently most of the traffic from eastern European countries is seen to be routed via Scandinavia on one or two routes. Alternative and additional peeerings are about to be deployed in collaboration with people working at carriers and IXPs. Aim is a more diverse structure. ? What are the associated costs and fees for IKO? ! [by Stefan Wahl] Currently being set, will not be a threshold. Basically meant to cover costs occuring from meetings etc. Check the website. ? Are the two exchange locations connected in some sense or the other? ! No, they are complete separate. Berlin is focussed on eastern Europe, when Dusseldorf is ment to be a local/regional exchange. - MIX, .it - by Valeria Rossi: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-mix.pdf * overview of facts and figures * fully operational IPv6 test bed since May 2003, dedicated VLAN for four testing members * Routing Information Service and Test Traffic Measurement to be installed in September 2003 * MIX will also host an instance of i.root-servers.net * other services currently deployed are an NTP service, the Traffic Analyser (see separate presentation), a Member Statistics History and Multicast * there were no questions from the audience - Xchangepoint, .uk - by Keith Mitchell: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-wg-updat… * overview of facts and figures: + European expansion funding secured + new CEO: Richard Almeida + LoNAP interconnect extended * expansion to Netherlands and Germany initially, decision where to go live first (Amsterdam or Frankfurt) to be expected soon * feedback on preferred cities or sites welcome * overview of locations (current and planned) and customer base, growth and services they use * Xchangepoint will not connect cities! * overview of the interconnect with LoNAP: + to date only point-to-point private VLANs + 12 XchangePoint customers and 8 LoNAP members participating: total 29 VLANs * presentation slotted in for the 2nd session on the new European Union telco regulation that came into force in July 2003: postponed to RIPE 47 as it is quite a bit of reading regarding access and dominant market position etc. IXPs will probably not be exempted. However, commenting would be too premature at this very moment * there were no questions from the audience [chairmanship passed on to Christian Panigl] - LINX, .uk - by Mike Hughes: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-linx.pdf * overview of facts and figures * overview of next year's pricing scheme: + increased weight towards traffic, lesss weight on mere ports + membership and joining fees be reduced by 25% * other developments include: + electronic voting by the LINX members + members' request to deploy optional(!) multi-lateral route reflectors + the possibility to deploy BENTO * enabling anycast for i.root-servers.net (LINX hosts its first and so far only instance) went smooth * secondarying ccTLDs such as .at. and be * there were no questions from the audience [chairmanship taken back from Christian Panigl] - NIX, .cz - by Josef Chomyn: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-nixcz.pdf * overview of facts, figures and conditions, e.g. the difference between members (legal entities in the Czech Republic) and customers (others) * outline of the 2004 fee structure * outline of the Cisco-based infrastructure * IPv6-ready. NIX wants to have public servers, e.g. a web server, on the IPv6 network - according to the current policy this is not possible as IXP /48s should not be publically annnounced * developments include a traffic analyser as a result of a diploma thesis (suprising results, revealed a lot of unwanted traffic caused by misconfigurations on the members' side and the replacement of Linux-based routers with Cisco for NIX' own AS and infrastructure ? (Bill Woodcock) IPv6 space allocated to IXPs should not be announced to anywhere else on the Internet. Current efforts to harmonise policies across the four RIRs - APNIC recently removed this requirement. What is the feeling of the audience about it? ! (Keith Mitchell) Policies should be harmonised. However, to his understanding the current RIPE policy is not prohibitive, but merely states that global routability is not ensured. ! (Lars-Johan Liman) Announcing an IXP's network can create quite complicated error situations, policy should follow operational issues. ! (Arien Vijn) Ditto, issues were to solved at AMS-IX only´ yesterday resulting from a global announcement. ! (Keith Mitchell) Should be up to the IXP operator to decide, rather than to the registry. Also it would seem to be logical to have a similar IPv4 policy, too. Harmonisation seems to be necessary. ! (Mike Hughes) Ditto - tell your customers to defend themselves against more specific routes. ! (Bernard Tuy) No more specific prefixes than /32s should be announced - so the /48s of IXPs just can't be announced according to the policy. ! (Mike Hughes) /32 rule is assignment policy that doesn't say anything about announcements. Do not mix up policy and operational issues! ? (Ruediger Volk) Are the servers supposed to sit on the peering network or is a separate network envisaged? If former is pursued: better keep out of it! ! (Josef Chomyn) Servers migrated from various ISPs to IXP location one by one. With IPv4 there is no problem: a /24 for the peering mesh, another /24 for the servers acting as a customer towards the IXP. This just not possible with IPv6. What to do? ! (Mike Hughes) This appears to be an address policy issue that may need to be reviewed. Discussion should continue on the mailing list if needed. ! (Henk Steenman) Take addresses from more than one connected ISPs and assign multiple addresses to each server. AMS-IX did so and can provide a document outlining this. 2nd session: 14:00 - 15:30 ========================== Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/eix-2a.wma - LoNAP, .uk - by James Rice: * LoNAP established in 1998, now in three premises * 100 Mbit and 1 Gbit connections available * switching fabric is Cisco based * several VLANs defined, such as for IPv4 multicast * fee structure on a per-year basis, includes ports an VLANs * one-off joining fee, includes the cabling etc. * LoNAP has 42 members at the moment, slightly increasing * multicast fabric collapsed into a VLAN * IPv6: three members peering with the route collector at the moment, on the same peering fabric in a separate VLAN * point-to-point private VLANs with Xchangepoint to be expanded to IPv6 as well * there were no questions from the audience - Euro-IX - by Serge Radovcic: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-euroix.p… * about Euro-IX itself: aims etc. * overview of facts and figures * IXPs to join Euro-IX: contact Serge or Christian Panigl * the database on the website lists more than 1,300 IXP peers now * an IXP peering matrix is about to be deployed soon that will easily give acces to information on which AS is present where * information on the switches being used by member IXPs to be found on the members-only pages * Fearghas McKay represented Euro-IX at the 2nd Latin American Regional NAP meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina + some Latin American NAPs expressed interest in visiting European IXPs * announcement of the 3rd Euro-IX Forum on 3rd and 4th of November in Lisbon, Portugal * Euro-IX' General Meeting to be held in conjunction with the Forum + three board seats becoming vacant to be filled ! (Christian Panigl) Euro-IX intends to support the developement of Quagga with some funds, Quagga is the successor of Zebra, a route server - Inter-Providers Traffic Analyzer - by Matheo Labanti: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-mix-anal… * a tool that uses past data and statistical calculations to detect anomalies and failures in traffic patterns * Useful to become aware of short term glitches * the tool operates on the physical layer * brief overview of the components and how they work together; full blown presentation to be given during Euro-IX Forum in November * examples were shown * there were no questions from the audience - Anycasting f.root-servers.net - by Joao Damas: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-dn-f-root.pdf * it is about improving DNS infrastructure and user experience, but not about competition * technical setup explained in detail at: http://www.isc.org/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt * distinction between 'global nodes' (no restrictions on BGP announcements) and 'local nodes' (no-export community), the latter preferrably to be installed at IXPs. Reason is that (D)DoS attacks often do not affect su much the box itself, but the bandwidth of a particular ISP. This setup ensures that even if one ISP goes down, the others still get the service * explanation of the general deployment scheme: black box principle connected to the IXP with several servers inside, one of them acting only as a monitoring and control box with OOB accces from a Management Transit Provider to the consoles of the servers * all nodes announce f's /24 and AS; additionally they have a second /24 and AS each, provided by the Management Transit Provider, to access them separately * two global nodes in San Francisco and Palo Alto with OSPF load balancing * various local ones on all five continents already deployed, more to come * there were no questions from the audience - Anycasting i.root-servers.net - by Kurt Erik Lindqvist: * i is operated by Autonomica, a 100% subsidiary of Netnod * again, anycast deployment is no race to outcompete other root server operators * plan 20 have 20 - 25 instances for i within a year * two strategies: operated by Netnod itself with own equipment, but also in cooperation with Packet Clearing House * two types of nodes: at IXPs and with ISPs, focus is on IXPs. ISPs would be large Tier 1 providers * site should provide about eight units rack space, power and hands-on-site; preferrably also a prefix and some bandwidth from the local host to manage the node * no no-export communities, up to the peers to decide about their announcement strategies. pros and cons for this, though * Netnod provides the hardware, but decided not to publish the detailed technical setup * plans to provide anycast for any TLD out of this infrastructure * short desription of where instances are currently deployed and what is planned for the near future ? (Henk Steenman) Criterias to pick a loctaion? ! No real criteria, traffic flow analysis could be one. However, it turned out to be almost impossible for Netnod to do. So major "Internet impact" sites are a pick, but also where a local community will benefit from the deployment ? (Christian Panigl) One reason for anycasting is to catch (D)DoS attacks. Woudn't it make sense to have instances close to where these attacks mainly originate from? ! That is why Netnod goes to large IXPs and Tier 1 providers to pick up the traffaic as early - or close to the source, respectively - as possible. Another incentive to go to places with higher RTTs ? Financial aspects? ! No investment by the local host neede, all is paid for by Netnod, except for costs such as rack space, power or transit - Anycasting k.root-servers.net - by Andrei Robachevsky: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-k-anycas… * two instances deployed at LINX and AMS-IX * cluster of two servers with NSD and a sniffer box * global reachability * funded by the RIPE NCC, AMS-IX provides 1G port * objectives are the improvement of access to k, the impact isolation of an external (D)DoS attack and the impact localisation of a local one * locations likely to be IXPs, hosted and fully funded by a neutral party with an open peering policy * operations exclusively performed by the RIPE NCC * single box solution, capable of handling six times the average load, with DNS server, router and sniffer * also here, next to the service network (local, but also global if coordinated) there is a management network * announcement of a more in-depth discussion later this day and a next day's presentation on technical setup and experience gained ? (Keith Mitchell) Own AS per instance? ! Own AS for k, regardless the instance. ? (Rob Blokzijl) Coordination amongst the operators? All tend to go to large IXPs: does that create complications? ! Actually not. One of the goals is to mitigate (D)DoS attacks, so an attack only on k will not harm i - even in the same location. Also, the models are different. ! (Rob Blokzijl) Differences in approach are a strength, also deployment for local communities. ! (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Some level of coodination. However, only three present here, but more actually doing anycast. ! (Rob Blokzijl) Good development, also for political reasons: makes it impossible to hijack or take dwon the root. ! (Lars-Johan Leman) Some overlap is good, but not a total overlap. The own interests of the IXPs would prevent this anyways by balancing it out. ! (Keith Mitchell) Coordination could be organised by ICANN's RSSAC, also off-line security should be considered. ! (Lars-Johan Leman) RSSAC has been incapable to give advise, that is why the operatorts themselves do it. ! (Andrei Robachevsky) IXPs to ccordinate location of two instances themselves, considering the type of service they host. ? How much for a k instance and how many are planned? ! (Andrei Robachevsky) In the order of EUR 5,000 per box, some 15, maybe even 20 planned. Global reachability as a requirement will come at a later stage, then probably at net topologically aequidistant locations. ! (Joao Damas) Aequidistance might be a problem. - IXP database - by Bill Woodcock: http://www.pch.net/resources/data/exchange-points/ * Packet Clearing House mainatines and publishes an EXCEL spreadsheet covering all IXPs around the planet * regularly updated, request to send in updates * carries also gossip, not only hard facts as it is sometimes hard to find out about an IXP * there were no questions from the audience - No exchange with either Address Policy WG or NCC Services WG. - No AOB. End of RIPE 46 EIX WG meeting.

1 0

RIPE 46 EIX-WG Draft Minutes
by Mike Hughes 13 Nov '03

13 Nov '03

Hi all, Please find below a Draft copy of the minutes of the EIX-WG at RIPE46, taken by Carsten Schiefner. Let me know if you see any factual inaccuracies, errors or significant omissions, as soon as possible, and before the 24th November. Thanks, Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------- RIPE 46 EIX WG minutes - Wednesday, 5 September 2003 Chaired by: Mike Hughes <mike(a)linx.net>, WG Co-Chair Scribe: Carsten Schiefner <carsten(a)ripe.net> Location: St. Johns II Attendees: 108 Abstract ======== Trends to be seen were: - steady growth - GE or even 10 GE deployed more and more, FE not even available any longer at some IXPs - IPv6 widely deployed - the larger IXP tend to have multiple locations - ongoing evaluation of IXPs' current setup and exploration of future possibilities => no stand-still - some IXPs also host ccTLD secondaries - one IXP consortium also pursues social exchange to foster the co-operation and collaboration with Eastern European IXPs and ISPs There was a brief discussion re. the issue of IPv6 address space not being allowed to be globally advertised by the respective policy. Demand was expressed to alingn and harmonise the policy with both, the other RIRs and existing IPv4 policies. Furthermore, it was suggeted to continue this discussion on the mailing list. 2nd session (after lunch) covered the following presentations: - an update on Euro-IX, the IXP association. Euro-IX intends to support the developement of Quagga with some funds, Quagga is the successor of Zebra, a route server. Also, Euro-IX is about to deploy a peering matrix that will easily give acces to information on which AS is present where. - on the Inter-Provider Traffic Analyzer. This tool uses past data and statistical calculations to detect anomalies in traffic patterns. Useful to become aware of short term glitches, the tool operates on the physical layer. - the anycast deployments of the F, I and K root servers by Netnod, ISC, and the RIPE NCC, respectively. The slightly different strategies were explained which were felt as a strength. However, it was also felt that some coordination would be useful to prevent deployment only at places that have an excellent coverage already anyways. - a brief reminder of the global IXP database maintained by Packet Clearing House and its need to get updates to remain uptodate. It was explicitly mentioned that it also carries "gossip" and not only verified information. The last agenda item covered input/output with the Address Policy and the NCC Services WGs which there was none of. 1st session: 11:00 - 12:30 ========================== Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/eix-1a.wma A. Administrative stuff - apologies from Fearghas McKay, WG Chair - agenda approved as proposed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/agendas/eix.html B. IXP presentations - Trends to be seen in the presentations from eleven European IXPs were: * steady growth * GE or even 10 GE deployed more and more, FE not even available any longer at some IXPs * IPv6 widely deployed * the larger IXP tend to have multiple locations * ongoing evaluation of IXPs' current setup and exploration of future possibilities => no stand-still * some IXPs also host ccTLD secondaries * one IXP consortium also pursues social exchange to foster the co-operation and collaboration with Eastern European IXPs and ISPs - Netnod, .se - by Kurt Erik Lindqvist: * ??? * there were no questions from the audience, one observation though: use IP phones to contact not just Netnod, but also other IXPs and providers - AMS-IX, .nl - by Henk Steenman: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-amsix.pdf * overview of facts and figures * overview of the three main VLAN services: Peering, GRX and MDX * other services are VLANs for Closed User Groups and for Private Interconnect, furthermore the hosting of secondary ccTLD servers * overview of the current infrastructure and a typical traffic pattern during a week * progress: + renumbering all connections from a /24 to /23 + migration to a next generation platform, replacing the current circle architecture by a star based one. This will provide better scalability and stability and allow to offer trunked x * 1 GE and 10 GE connections + overview of the new topology * next AMS-IX tech meeting to be held in the morning of 24 September, the general meeting in the afternoon, including the election of new board members ? Will the two switches be in the same building? ! No, they will be in different buildings, about 25 km apart. - INEX, .ie - by Brian Boyle: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-inex.pdf * overview of facts and figures: + modeled on LINX * INEX services are IP switching and a framework to facilitate peering and transit, furthermore statistics * INEX news are a new GM, Barry Rhodes, IPv6-readiness, GE enabled, and a new tariff system * the statistics show a steady growth annd considerably less traffic during weekends * overview of the different types of charges and the organisation itself ? When was IPv6 started? ! No detailed information, but earlier this year. - TELEHOUSE/CERN (NYIIX/LAIIX/CIXP), .us & .ch - by Akio Sugeno & Paolo Moroni: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-cern.pdf * overview of NYIIX and LAIIX facts and figures * f.root-servers.net instances deployed recently at both locations * second NYIIX site in operation since July 2003 * customers tend to privately peer via NYIIX as L2 transport became recently considerably cheaper than in-building peering * customers join NYIIX via EoMPLS from very remote places * overview of CIXP facts, figures and recent operational issues * inter-site VLAN services and access to an NTP server are available to CIXP members, IPv6 is about to be deployed * no link or relationship to Zurich based Telehouse Internet Exchange (TIX) ? Were there any operational issues at NYIIX associated with the recent power outage in the north-east of the US? ! No - NYIIX runs back-up generators. ? Is there any concern by the building management running the in-building peering facilities that customers actually use a competitor? ! No information. - N-IX, .de - by Kurt Kayser: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-nix.pdf * overview of facts and figures: + only GE ports offered + private VLANs recommended, e.g. to deliver on SLAs * overview of fees, eight carriers in house * 2nd location in planning * summary + medium sized regional exchange + no membership + extremly low costs + maximum performance * no issues with n-ix.cz because of name clash * there were no questions from the audience - ECIX, .de - by Jan Czmok: * ECIX formerly known as Berlin Internet Exchange * name change necessary to accomodate some changes * ECIX is active in Berlin and Dusseldorf, both location are up and running and ready for peering * member of IKO * aim is to provide local exchange for ISPs * ECIX members sum up to currently five, more to come * IPv4 and v6 ready * FE and GE, SX or LX, available * more information available on the website at: http://www.ecix.de/ * IKO stands for "Internet-Knoten Osteuropa". It is meant to build social networks amongst and with individuals from carriers operating in eastern European countries, in particular those accessing the European Union * IKO was founded in 2003 and currently has twelve members * main office in Berlin, branch office in Wroclaw * more information available on the website at: http://www.iko-ev.org/ ? What is a social network? ! Intent is to create awareness amongst ISPs and carriers in regard to cooperation across borders; currently most of the traffic from eastern European countries is seen to be routed via Scandinavia on one or two routes. Alternative and additional peeerings are about to be deployed in collaboration with people working at carriers and IXPs. Aim is a more diverse structure. ? What are the associated costs and fees for IKO? ! [by Stefan Wahl] Currently being set, will not be a threshold. Basically meant to cover costs occuring from meetings etc. Check the website. ? Are the two exchange locations connected in some sense or the other? ! No, they are complete separate. Berlin is focussed on eastern Europe, when Dusseldorf is ment to be a local/regional exchange. - MIX, .it - by Valeria Rossi: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-mix.pdf * overview of facts and figures * fully operational IPv6 test bed since May 2003, dedicated VLAN for four testing members * Routing Information Service and Test Traffic Measurement to be installed in September 2003 * MIX will also host an instance of i.root-servers.net * other services currently deployed are an NTP service, the Traffic Analyser (see separate presentation), a Member Statistics History and Multicast * there were no questions from the audience - Xchangepoint, .uk - by Keith Mitchell: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-wg-updat… * overview of facts and figures: + European expansion funding secured + new CEO: Richard Almeida + LoNAP interconnect extended * expansion to Netherlands and Germany initially, decision where to go live first (Amsterdam or Frankfurt) to be expected soon * feedback on preferred cities or sites welcome * overview of locations (current and planned) and customer base, growth and services they use * Xchangepoint will not connect cities! * overview of the interconnect with LoNAP: + to date only point-to-point private VLANs + 12 XchangePoint customers and 8 LoNAP members participating: total 29 VLANs * presentation slotted in for the 2nd session on the new European Union telco regulation that came into force in July 2003: postponed to RIPE 47 as it is quite a bit of reading regarding access and dominant market position etc. IXPs will probably not be exempted. However, commenting would be too premature at this very moment * there were no questions from the audience [chairmanship passed on to Christian Panigl] - LINX, .uk - by Mike Hughes: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-linx.pdf * overview of facts and figures * overview of next year's pricing scheme: + increased weight towards traffic, lesss weight on mere ports + membership and joining fees be reduced by 25% * other developments include: + electronic voting by the LINX members + members' request to deploy optional(!) multi-lateral route reflectors + the possibility to deploy BENTO * enabling anycast for i.root-servers.net (LINX hosts its first and so far only instance) went smooth * secondarying ccTLDs such as .at. and be * there were no questions from the audience [chairmanship taken back from Christian Panigl] - NIX, .cz - by Josef Chomyn: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-nixcz.pdf * overview of facts, figures and conditions, e.g. the difference between members (legal entities in the Czech Republic) and customers (others) * outline of the 2004 fee structure * outline of the Cisco-based infrastructure * IPv6-ready. NIX wants to have public servers, e.g. a web server, on the IPv6 network - according to the current policy this is not possible as IXP /48s should not be publically annnounced * developments include a traffic analyser as a result of a diploma thesis (suprising results, revealed a lot of unwanted traffic caused by misconfigurations on the members' side and the replacement of Linux-based routers with Cisco for NIX' own AS and infrastructure ? (Bill Woodcock) IPv6 space allocated to IXPs should not be announced to anywhere else on the Internet. Current efforts to harmonise policies across the four RIRs - APNIC recently removed this requirement. What is the feeling of the audience about it? ! (Keith Mitchell) Policies should be harmonised. However, to his understanding the current RIPE policy is not prohibitive, but merely states that global routability is not ensured. ! (Lars-Johan Liman) Announcing an IXP's network can create quite complicated error situations, policy should follow operational issues. ! (Arien Vijn) Ditto, issues were to solved at AMS-IX only´ yesterday resulting from a global announcement. ! (Keith Mitchell) Should be up to the IXP operator to decide, rather than to the registry. Also it would seem to be logical to have a similar IPv4 policy, too. Harmonisation seems to be necessary. ! (Mike Hughes) Ditto - tell your customers to defend themselves against more specific routes. ! (Bernard Tuy) No more specific prefixes than /32s should be announced - so the /48s of IXPs just can't be announced according to the policy. ! (Mike Hughes) /32 rule is assignment policy that doesn't say anything about announcements. Do not mix up policy and operational issues! ? (Ruediger Volk) Are the servers supposed to sit on the peering network or is a separate network envisaged? If former is pursued: better keep out of it! ! (Josef Chomyn) Servers migrated from various ISPs to IXP location one by one. With IPv4 there is no problem: a /24 for the peering mesh, another /24 for the servers acting as a customer towards the IXP. This just not possible with IPv6. What to do? ! (Mike Hughes) This appears to be an address policy issue that may need to be reviewed. Discussion should continue on the mailing list if needed. ! (Henk Steenman) Take addresses from more than one connected ISPs and assign multiple addresses to each server. AMS-IX did so and can provide a document outlining this. 2nd session: 14:00 - 15:30 ========================== Audio archive: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/eix-2a.wma - LoNAP, .uk - by James Rice: * LoNAP established in 1998, now in three premises * 100 Mbit and 1 Gbit connections available * switching fabric is Cisco based * several VLANs defined, such as for IPv4 multicast * fee structure on a per-year basis, includes ports an VLANs * one-off joining fee, includes the cabling etc. * LoNAP has 42 members at the moment, slightly increasing * multicast fabric collapsed into a VLAN * IPv6: three members peering with the route collector at the moment, on the same peering fabric in a separate VLAN * point-to-point private VLANs with Xchangepoint to be expanded to IPv6 as well * there were no questions from the audience - Euro-IX - by Serge Radovcic: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-euroix.p… * about Euro-IX itself: aims etc. * overview of facts and figures * IXPs to join Euro-IX: contact Serge or Christian Panigl * the database on the website lists more than 1,300 IXP peers now * an IXP peering matrix is about to be deployed soon that will easily give acces to information on which AS is present where * information on the switches being used by member IXPs to be found on the members-only pages * Fearghas McKay represented Euro-IX at the 2nd Latin American Regional NAP meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina + some Latin American NAPs expressed interest in visiting European IXPs * announcement of the 3rd Euro-IX Forum on 3rd and 4th of November in Lisbon, Portugal * Euro-IX' General Meeting to be held in conjunction with the Forum + three board seats becoming vacant to be filled ! (Christian Panigl) Euro-IX intends to support the developement of Quagga with some funds, Quagga is the successor of Zebra, a route server - Inter-Providers Traffic Analyzer - by Matheo Labanti: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-mix-anal… * a tool that uses past data and statistical calculations to detect anomalies and failures in traffic patterns * Useful to become aware of short term glitches * the tool operates on the physical layer * brief overview of the components and how they work together; full blown presentation to be given during Euro-IX Forum in November * examples were shown * there were no questions from the audience - Anycasting f.root-servers.net - by Joao Damas: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-dn-f-root.pdf * it is about improving DNS infrastructure and user experience, but not about competition * technical setup explained in detail at: http://www.isc.org/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt * distinction between 'global nodes' (no restrictions on BGP announcements) and 'local nodes' (no-export community), the latter preferrably to be installed at IXPs. Reason is that (D)DoS attacks often do not affect su much the box itself, but the bandwidth of a particular ISP. This setup ensures that even if one ISP goes down, the others still get the service * explanation of the general deployment scheme: black box principle connected to the IXP with several servers inside, one of them acting only as a monitoring and control box with OOB accces from a Management Transit Provider to the consoles of the servers * all nodes announce f's /24 and AS; additionally they have a second /24 and AS each, provided by the Management Transit Provider, to access them separately * two global nodes in San Francisco and Palo Alto with OSPF load balancing * various local ones on all five continents already deployed, more to come * there were no questions from the audience - Anycasting i.root-servers.net - by Kurt Erik Lindqvist: * i is operated by Autonomica, a 100% subsidiary of Netnod * again, anycast deployment is no race to outcompete other root server operators * plan 20 have 20 - 25 instances for i within a year * two strategies: operated by Netnod itself with own equipment, but also in cooperation with Packet Clearing House * two types of nodes: at IXPs and with ISPs, focus is on IXPs. ISPs would be large Tier 1 providers * site should provide about eight units rack space, power and hands-on-site; preferrably also a prefix and some bandwidth from the local host to manage the node * no no-export communities, up to the peers to decide about their announcement strategies. pros and cons for this, though * Netnod provides the hardware, but decided not to publish the detailed technical setup * plans to provide anycast for any TLD out of this infrastructure * short desription of where instances are currently deployed and what is planned for the near future ? (Henk Steenman) Criterias to pick a loctaion? ! No real criteria, traffic flow analysis could be one. However, it turned out to be almost impossible for Netnod to do. So major "Internet impact" sites are a pick, but also where a local community will benefit from the deployment ? (Christian Panigl) One reason for anycasting is to catch (D)DoS attacks. Woudn't it make sense to have instances close to where these attacks mainly originate from? ! That is why Netnod goes to large IXPs and Tier 1 providers to pick up the traffaic as early - or close to the source, respectively - as possible. Another incentive to go to places with higher RTTs ? Financial aspects? ! No investment by the local host neede, all is paid for by Netnod, except for costs such as rack space, power or transit - Anycasting k.root-servers.net - by Andrei Robachevsky: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eix-k-anycas… * two instances deployed at LINX and AMS-IX * cluster of two servers with NSD and a sniffer box * global reachability * funded by the RIPE NCC, AMS-IX provides 1G port * objectives are the improvement of access to k, the impact isolation of an external (D)DoS attack and the impact localisation of a local one * locations likely to be IXPs, hosted and fully funded by a neutral party with an open peering policy * operations exclusively performed by the RIPE NCC * single box solution, capable of handling six times the average load, with DNS server, router and sniffer * also here, next to the service network (local, but also global if coordinated) there is a management network * announcement of a more in-depth discussion later this day and a next day's presentation on technical setup and experience gained ? (Keith Mitchell) Own AS per instance? ! Own AS for k, regardless the instance. ? (Rob Blokzijl) Coordination amongst the operators? All tend to go to large IXPs: does that create complications? ! Actually not. One of the goals is to mitigate (D)DoS attacks, so an attack only on k will not harm i - even in the same location. Also, the models are different. ! (Rob Blokzijl) Differences in approach are a strength, also deployment for local communities. ! (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Some level of coodination. However, only three present here, but more actually doing anycast. ! (Rob Blokzijl) Good development, also for political reasons: makes it impossible to hijack or take dwon the root. ! (Lars-Johan Leman) Some overlap is good, but not a total overlap. The own interests of the IXPs would prevent this anyways by balancing it out. ! (Keith Mitchell) Coordination could be organised by ICANN's RSSAC, also off-line security should be considered. ! (Lars-Johan Leman) RSSAC has been incapable to give advise, that is why the operatorts themselves do it. ! (Andrei Robachevsky) IXPs to ccordinate location of two instances themselves, considering the type of service they host. ? How much for a k instance and how many are planned? ! (Andrei Robachevsky) In the order of EUR 5,000 per box, some 15, maybe even 20 planned. Global reachability as a requirement will come at a later stage, then probably at net topologically aequidistant locations. ! (Joao Damas) Aequidistance might be a problem. - IXP database - by Bill Woodcock: http://www.pch.net/resources/data/exchange-points/ * Packet Clearing House mainatines and publishes an EXCEL spreadsheet covering all IXPs around the planet * regularly updated, request to send in updates * carries also gossip, not only hard facts as it is sometimes hard to find out about an IXP * there were no questions from the audience - No exchange with either Address Policy WG or NCC Services WG. - No AOB. End of RIPE 46 EIX WG meeting.

1 0

bgp behavior with exchange prefix in ebgp
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 02 Oct '03

02 Oct '03

Dear EIXers, I thought I'd expand on my comments in the EIX session earlier this week. In a network that peers over an exchange, you'll see routes like this in the BGP table: Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *>i62.3.192.0/18 193.148.15.112 200 110 0 6728 i *>i62.8.128.0/17 193.148.15.209 110 0 9132 ? *>i62.12.128.0/17 193.148.15.224 1100 110 0 15623 i Note that the next hop points to an address that falls within the (old) AMS-IX peering LAN prefix. Since this router isn't directly connected to the AMS-IX, it needs to resolve this next hop: Routing entry for 193.148.15.0/24 Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20, type extern 2, forward metric 1 Last update from 62.212.94.61 on GigabitEthernet1/0.1, 00:00:41 ago Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 62.212.94.61, from 62.212.80.68, 00:00:41 ago, via GigabitEthernet1/0.1 Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1 So in this case the peering LAN prefix is announced over OSPF, so the next hop resolves correctly and all the traffic is sent to the next router, which is the one directly connected to the AMS-IX here. Now consider what happens when someone elsewhere announces the peering LAN prefix over EBGP (this is taken from route-views.oregon-ix.net): BGP routing table entry for 193.148.15.0/24, version 426250 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 3277 8482 28968 3246 1200 194.85.4.249 from 194.85.4.249 (194.85.4.249) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best And: Routing entry for 193.148.15.0/24 Known via "bgp 6447", distance 20, metric 0 Tag 3277, type external Last update from 194.85.4.249 03:30:30 ago Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 194.85.4.249, from 194.85.4.249, 03:30:30 ago Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 AS Hops 5 The important part here is that the 193.148.15.0/24 prefix in OSPF has an administrative distance of 110, while the EBGP route shown here has a much lower administrative distance of 20. This means that the next hop address for the AMS-IX would resolve to an EBGP neighbor and all traffic to exchange peers is redirected over this neighbor! Now fortunately this only happens for routers that learn the peering LAN prefix over EBGP, so the impact is usually limited, but it's well worth the effort to filter out the peering LAN prefixes you connect to yourself. What happened this week at AMS-IX was even more fun: the new prefix for the peering LAN is a /23, but someone started to announce a /24 within that /24. (Probably typed ... 255.255.255.0 rather than ... 255.255.254.0, easy mistake.) The rule that kicked in now wasn't the relatively minor "EBGP has a lower administrative distance than IGPs" but the much heavier "longest match first" one. So in this case even the next hop resolved to an external route on the AMS-IX connected routers themselves, breaking the peering sessions. Iljitsch van Beijnum

4 4