From as112-ops at trex.fi  Tue May 23 10:18:06 2017
From: as112-ops at trex.fi (Aleksi Suhonen)
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 13:18:06 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi> <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net> <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
Message-ID: <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi>

Hi again,

So some months ago Yahoo sent the peering invite, which I forwarded on
this list. Later they closed that ticket. And now they created a new
ticket, to which I responded with the old ticket. Now they seem to be
waiting for me to set up the sessions in Phoenix IX. (see attachment)

I don't even,

-- 
	+358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/
	Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy

	You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Yahoo! Help Central <yahoo at service-now.com>
Subject: Comments have been added PTKT0648807 - Re: Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 02:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Size: 4990
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20170523/05b33a9d/attachment.eml>

From grizz at 20c.com  Wed May 24 06:55:32 2017
From: grizz at 20c.com (Matt Griswold)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 06:55:32 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi>
 <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net>
 <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
 <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi>
Message-ID: <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>

* Aleksi Suhonen <as112-ops at trex.fi> [170523 13:18 +0300]:
> So some months ago Yahoo sent the peering invite, which I forwarded on
> this list. Later they closed that ticket. And now they created a new
> ticket, to which I responded with the old ticket. Now they seem to be
> waiting for me to set up the sessions in Phoenix IX. (see attachment)

I escalated it at Yahoo, they're going to take care of it.

Cheers

From nick at inex.ie  Wed May 24 09:25:04 2017
From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 10:25:04 +0100
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi> <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net> <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
 <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi> <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>
Message-ID: <59255170.6020203@inex.ie>

Matt Griswold wrote:
> * Aleksi Suhonen <as112-ops at trex.fi> [170523 13:18 +0300]:
>> So some months ago Yahoo sent the peering invite, which I forwarded on
>> this list. Later they closed that ticket. And now they created a new
>> ticket, to which I responded with the old ticket. Now they seem to be
>> waiting for me to set up the sessions in Phoenix IX. (see attachment)
> 
> I escalated it at Yahoo, they're going to take care of it.

Yahoo isn't the only large organisation which has problems with AS112.
Turns out, most organisations large enough to have a provisioning
database make the assumption that an ASN has a single owner, which fails
epically with as112.

Nick


From jabley at hopcount.ca  Wed May 24 09:39:25 2017
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 12:39:25 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <59255170.6020203@inex.ie>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi> <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net> <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
 <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi> <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>
 <59255170.6020203@inex.ie>
Message-ID: <0C5E2A87-C4AE-4850-9A69-DC5EB5F03E7D@hopcount.ca>

Hi Nick,

Seems to me that there are two cases here:

1. An AS who peers and/or buys transit wants to export the usual AS112 routes with origin 112 as part of the normal set they send to their BGP neighbours because they host an AS112 node internally, and

2. An exchange point operator hosts an AS112 node at an exchange, and solicits adjacencies between their router in AS112 and the routers of other exchange participants.

In the first case (which I've seen before) peers and transit providers want to see something that looks like an LOA that confirms that you are entitled to propagate the AS112 prefixes. I know we discussed writing something that looks like an LOA in the RFC series at some point, so there was a consistent, official-looking reference to pass on. I don't think anything ever came of that idea.

In the second case I'm not sure I precisely understand what is needed. Is the problem that the AS112 node at FooIX has NOC/ops contact info that is different from the AS112 node at BarIX? Or is this more like a PeeringDB schema problem, that it's hard for more than one person to administer records related to AS112? Or something else?

If case (2) has intractable problems and (1) does not, one option would be to avoid (2) and make the IX cases look like (1) -- have the exchange point management AS give transit to 112 towards peers, rather than having people peer with 112 routers directly?


Joe

> On May 24, 2017, at 12:25, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote:
> 
> Matt Griswold wrote:
>> * Aleksi Suhonen <as112-ops at trex.fi> [170523 13:18 +0300]:
>>> So some months ago Yahoo sent the peering invite, which I forwarded on
>>> this list. Later they closed that ticket. And now they created a new
>>> ticket, to which I responded with the old ticket. Now they seem to be
>>> waiting for me to set up the sessions in Phoenix IX. (see attachment)
>> 
>> I escalated it at Yahoo, they're going to take care of it.
> 
> Yahoo isn't the only large organisation which has problems with AS112.
> Turns out, most organisations large enough to have a provisioning
> database make the assumption that an ASN has a single owner, which fails
> epically with as112.
> 
> Nick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops


From nick at inex.ie  Wed May 24 13:18:22 2017
From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:18:22 +0100
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <0C5E2A87-C4AE-4850-9A69-DC5EB5F03E7D@hopcount.ca>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi> <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net> <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
 <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi> <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>
 <59255170.6020203@inex.ie> <0C5E2A87-C4AE-4850-9A69-DC5EB5F03E7D@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <5925881E.6050808@inex.ie>

Joe Abley wrote:
> In the second case I'm not sure I precisely understand what is 
> needed. Is the problem that the AS112 node at FooIX has NOC/ops 
> contact info that is different from the AS112 node at BarIX? Or is 
> this more like a PeeringDB schema problem, that it's hard for more 
> than one person to administer records related to AS112? Or something 
> else?

these companies have their own provisioning systems which pull data from
peeringdb and other sources.  The problem is that that they usually
assume that there is a 1:1 relationship between ASN and organisation,
not a 1:n relationship as you would need in the case of as112.  This is
further exacerbated by assuming that there is a 1:1 relationship between
an organisation and its list of NOC contact points.  BTW, this is
usually quite a good optimisation to make because it simplifies data
structures and data management.  But it breaks with as112.

Nick

From as112-ops at trex.fi  Fri May 26 10:03:52 2017
From: as112-ops at trex.fi (Aleksi Suhonen)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:03:52 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <5925881E.6050808@inex.ie>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi> <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net> <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
 <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi> <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>
 <59255170.6020203@inex.ie> <0C5E2A87-C4AE-4850-9A69-DC5EB5F03E7D@hopcount.ca>
 <5925881E.6050808@inex.ie>
Message-ID: <b701eeb2-f3e5-c615-0ad3-2184bdadaa70@trex.fi>

Hello,

On 05/24/2017 04:18 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Joe Abley wrote:
>> In the second case I'm not sure I precisely understand what is 
>> needed. Is the problem that the AS112 node at FooIX has NOC/ops 
>> contact info that is different from the AS112 node at BarIX? Or is 
>> this more like a PeeringDB schema problem, that it's hard for more 
>> than one person to administer records related to AS112? Or something 
>> else?

> these companies have their own provisioning systems which pull data from
> peeringdb and other sources.  The problem is that that they usually
> assume that there is a 1:1 relationship between ASN and organisation,
> not a 1:n relationship as you would need in the case of as112.  This is
> further exacerbated by assuming that there is a 1:1 relationship between
> an organisation and its list of NOC contact points.  BTW, this is
> usually quite a good optimisation to make because it simplifies data
> structures and data management.  But it breaks with as112.

As nobody seemed to oppose it, I suggest we reduce the relationship to
1:1 for AS112 as well, as far as PeeringDB is concerned: Let's strip all
other contacts from PeeringDB, and add this mailing-list as the first
and only point of contact?

The bigger problem seems to be that not all IX node operators are on
this list. At least I've never heard from anyone at Phoenix IX after
lots of messages on this list...

My two cents,

-- 
	+358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/
	Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy

	You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."

From jabley at hopcount.ca  Fri May 26 10:11:19 2017
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:11:19 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <b701eeb2-f3e5-c615-0ad3-2184bdadaa70@trex.fi>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi> <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net> <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
 <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi> <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>
 <59255170.6020203@inex.ie> <0C5E2A87-C4AE-4850-9A69-DC5EB5F03E7D@hopcount.ca>
 <5925881E.6050808@inex.ie> <b701eeb2-f3e5-c615-0ad3-2184bdadaa70@trex.fi>
Message-ID: <0F1AE105-6FD9-40F8-A0E5-C3484A5A7A3E@hopcount.ca>

Hi Aleksi!

(Sorry for any horrible formatting; I'm typing on an iPad.)

If we use the mailing list as a contact, then we need to be prepared for either (a) mail to bounce when non-subscribers send it, or (b) the mailing list to be opened to posts from non-subscribers, which means it's going to start receiving spam.

An alternative would be to ask the nice DNS-OARC people whether they are happy to act as a point of contact (and to own e.g. the PeeringDB record), and to relay requests to the list or to individual operators as necessary. This is in line with the other support they provide to the project, e.g. looking after the as112.net domain, hosting this list, etc.


Joe

> On May 26, 2017, at 13:03, Aleksi Suhonen <as112-ops at trex.fi> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
>> On 05/24/2017 04:18 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Joe Abley wrote:
>>> In the second case I'm not sure I precisely understand what is 
>>> needed. Is the problem that the AS112 node at FooIX has NOC/ops 
>>> contact info that is different from the AS112 node at BarIX? Or is 
>>> this more like a PeeringDB schema problem, that it's hard for more 
>>> than one person to administer records related to AS112? Or something 
>>> else?
> 
>> these companies have their own provisioning systems which pull data from
>> peeringdb and other sources.  The problem is that that they usually
>> assume that there is a 1:1 relationship between ASN and organisation,
>> not a 1:n relationship as you would need in the case of as112.  This is
>> further exacerbated by assuming that there is a 1:1 relationship between
>> an organisation and its list of NOC contact points.  BTW, this is
>> usually quite a good optimisation to make because it simplifies data
>> structures and data management.  But it breaks with as112.
> 
> As nobody seemed to oppose it, I suggest we reduce the relationship to
> 1:1 for AS112 as well, as far as PeeringDB is concerned: Let's strip all
> other contacts from PeeringDB, and add this mailing-list as the first
> and only point of contact?
> 
> The bigger problem seems to be that not all IX node operators are on
> this list. At least I've never heard from anyone at Phoenix IX after
> lots of messages on this list...
> 
> My two cents,
> 
> -- 
>    +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/
>    Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy
> 
>    You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."
> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops


From nick at inex.ie  Fri May 26 12:05:37 2017
From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:05:37 +0100
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <b701eeb2-f3e5-c615-0ad3-2184bdadaa70@trex.fi>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi> <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net> <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
 <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi> <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>
 <59255170.6020203@inex.ie> <0C5E2A87-C4AE-4850-9A69-DC5EB5F03E7D@hopcount.ca>
 <5925881E.6050808@inex.ie> <b701eeb2-f3e5-c615-0ad3-2184bdadaa70@trex.fi>
Message-ID: <59281A11.9040200@inex.ie>

Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
> As nobody seemed to oppose it, I suggest we reduce the relationship to
> 1:1 for AS112 as well, as far as PeeringDB is concerned

please no.  I can live with (and giggle at) the occasional misdirected
email, but there is simply no need for this sort of chatter to be
directed towards all as112 operators.  This is wasting everyone's time,
not just mine.

Nick


From sethm at rollernet.us  Fri May 26 14:27:35 2017
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:27:35 -0700
Subject: [as112-ops] Yahoo Peering Invite at Phoenix IX
In-Reply-To: <59281A11.9040200@inex.ie>
References: <201703101736.v2AHZxgV032389@mrout1.yahoo.com>
 <1dae474c-f1f6-053c-adc3-99b2d5d2d93e@trex.fi> <58C68C28.1080503@inex.ie>
 <af214da8-34f6-d428-14e9-8d18c2e24060@trex.fi>
 <69f10230-9532-cf4c-8502-f4b844c2210b@in-berlin.de>
 <1489435070.2901.10.camel@puisard.hivane.net> <58C6FC8F.8000700@dns-oarc.net>
 <8d849c8c-0d5b-29a4-6b32-5bb32886db50@trex.fi> <20170524065532.5a6c360e@x0r>
 <59255170.6020203@inex.ie> <0C5E2A87-C4AE-4850-9A69-DC5EB5F03E7D@hopcount.ca>
 <5925881E.6050808@inex.ie> <b701eeb2-f3e5-c615-0ad3-2184bdadaa70@trex.fi>
 <59281A11.9040200@inex.ie>
Message-ID: <e38ee27d-c39a-968f-71d9-7b23e9d55618@rollernet.us>

I too don't really care if I see the occasional misdirected peering 
request email. Things are fine as-is for me. Yahoo is not being 
malicious, it appears to only happen once when they join an IX, so I 
just delete it and move on to better things.

~Seth

