From matt at dns-oarc.net  Fri Nov  2 15:40:33 2018
From: matt at dns-oarc.net (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 11:40:33 -0400
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>

We received this request this morning (copied here with permission).  I'm curious how others normally deal with this when LOAs are requested.  Do you point to RFC7534?  Something else?

We can probably put together an LOA and post it to the as112.net site if necessary, but I'd be surprised if this is the first time this has come up.

Matt Pounsett
DNS-OARC Systems Engineering


> On Nov 2, 2018, at 06:09, Siyuan Miao <aveline at misaka.io> wrote:
> 
> Hi DNS-OARC Admin,
> 
> We're having issues when announce AS112 prefixes to some certain providers and they ask us LOA for AS112 prefixes.
> 
> Would that be possible to issue a LOA for this?
> 
> Best regards,
> Siyuan Miao

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181102/63b0787f/attachment.sig>

From jabley at hopcount.ca  Fri Nov  2 15:47:44 2018
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 08:47:44 -0700
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
Message-ID: <CAJhMdTMoV0co+W_Eh=A2HPUhTB-y_s6_S=8fax33s7LPMmL5_w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Matt,

I've received requests like that before. I think in every case
pointing people at the RFC worked, but I had thought before that a
conventional LOA on OARC letterhead written with concise and helpful
references to the RFCs might be helpful.

If anybody thinks this would be a useful idea I'd be happy to help
draft some text.


Joe

> On Nov 2, 2018, at 11:40, Matthew Pounsett <matt at dns-oarc.net> wrote:
>
> We received this request this morning (copied here with permission).  I'm curious how others normally deal with this when LOAs are requested.  Do you point to RFC7534?  Something else?
>
> We can probably put together an LOA and post it to the as112.net site if necessary, but I'd be surprised if this is the first time this has come up.
>
> Matt Pounsett
> DNS-OARC Systems Engineering
>
>
>> On Nov 2, 2018, at 06:09, Siyuan Miao <aveline at misaka.io> wrote:
>>
>> Hi DNS-OARC Admin,
>>
>> We're having issues when announce AS112 prefixes to some certain providers and they ask us LOA for AS112 prefixes.
>>
>> Would that be possible to issue a LOA for this?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Siyuan Miao
>
> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops

From geier at geier.ne.tz  Fri Nov  2 16:46:56 2018
From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:46:56 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
Message-ID: <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>

Hi,

On 02/11/2018 18:40, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 2018, at 06:09, Siyuan Miao <aveline at misaka.io> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi DNS-OARC Admin,
>> 
>> We're having issues when announce AS112 prefixes to some certain
>> providers and they ask us LOA for AS112 prefixes.
>> 
>> Would that be possible to issue a LOA for this?
>> 
>> Best regards, Siyuan Miao

so I have problems understanding something.

if you're operating an AS112 instance,
- as an IXP, you offer it to all your peers, as value added service that
doesn't cost you anything
- as a $provider, you offer it to all your customers, to get have them
get the negative answers to the useless queries as fast as possible, and
without "costing" you anything

But [noting there are enough other instances in the world] why would I
want to tell my upstream: here, all your other customers, your peers,
everyone, from the other side of the globe, send that traffic to me, I
pay for it, <sarcasm>and when it's from the other side of the globe
we'll together make sure it takes as long as possible</sarcasm>.

Of course: many good things have come from volunteering things. But here
one is also opening the possibility for making flows less efficient, if
say your upstream now gets AS112 from one or many peerings, and after
this change they get and prefer it from you (customer) and then send
traffic from around the world to you...

I just believe AS112 packets shouldn't travel far.

Maybe operators should treat these widely anycasted prefixes as "golden"
and give same preference whether received from customer or peering. But
I think we're not there - and their network, their rules.


Am I missing something?
What?


Thanks,
Frank
[operating AS112 in TZ]

From jabley at hopcount.ca  Fri Nov  2 17:21:29 2018
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:21:29 -0700
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
Message-ID: <CAJhMdTM7MTc21ViXsPt4TpLuNktAGPGk6ssCXxLNCBnt+_RJxg@mail.gmail.com>

Hujambo rafiki!

On Nov 2, 2018, at 12:46, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

> Of course: many good things have come from volunteering things. But here
> one is also opening the possibility for making flows less efficient, if
> say your upstream now gets AS112 from one or many peerings, and after
> this change they get and prefer it from you (customer) and then send
> traffic from around the world to you...
>
> I just believe AS112 packets shouldn't travel far.

I agree with you, but for the service to be globally available
*someone* needs to provide transit for the service addresses.

In the past I have used AS112 as a test tenant on new anycast
infrastructure in order to do end-to-end testing. It's a service with
live traffic and no reasonable end-user expectations, so it's kind of
perfect for that.

Whether you or I think that these routes *should* be advertised for
transit, I think it would be unreasonable to insist that they should
not.


Joe

From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net  Fri Nov  2 17:32:11 2018
From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 11:32:11 -0600
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
Message-ID: <d1d14ab8-ee05-8b46-6840-3aa89da87ec2@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>

On 11/02/2018 10:46 AM, Frank Habicht wrote:
> But [noting there are enough other instances in the world] why would I 
> want to tell my upstream: here, all your other customers, your peers, 
> everyone, from the other side of the globe, send that traffic to me, 
> I pay for it, <sarcasm>and when it's from the other side of the globe 
> we'll together make sure it takes as long as possible</sarcasm>.
> 
> Of course: many good things have come from volunteering things. But here 
> one is also opening the possibility for making flows less efficient, if 
> say your upstream now gets AS112 from one or many peerings, and after 
> this change they get and prefer it from you (customer) and then send 
> traffic from around the world to you...
> 
> I just believe AS112 packets shouldn't travel far.
> 
> Maybe operators should treat these widely anycasted prefixes as "golden" 
> and give same preference whether received from customer or peering. But 
> I think we're not there - and their network, their rules.

Would it be worth while to originate the AS112 prefixes to all peers 
willing to accept it with the don't (re)export attribute?  That way 
directly connected peers (that accept the advertisement) will benefit. 
But people further away won't be drawn towards your AS112 instance?

#thinkingOutLoud

> Am I missing something?

I think you ask a valid question.  Something that AS112 operators should 
contemplate.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3982 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181102/415f0673/attachment.bin>

From geier at geier.ne.tz  Fri Nov  2 18:04:45 2018
From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 21:04:45 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <CAJhMdTM7MTc21ViXsPt4TpLuNktAGPGk6ssCXxLNCBnt+_RJxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CAJhMdTM7MTc21ViXsPt4TpLuNktAGPGk6ssCXxLNCBnt+_RJxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <495d3d5f-4b6c-70b1-30e0-ac73e7318cfd@geier.ne.tz>

Hi Joe,

On 02/11/2018 20:21, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hujambo rafiki!
> 
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 12:46, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> 
>> Of course: many good things have come from volunteering things. But here
>> one is also opening the possibility for making flows less efficient, if
>> say your upstream now gets AS112 from one or many peerings, and after
>> this change they get and prefer it from you (customer) and then send
>> traffic from around the world to you...
>>
>> I just believe AS112 packets shouldn't travel far.
> 
> I agree with you, but for the service to be globally available
> *someone* needs to provide transit for the service addresses.

absolutely yes.
I think there are some usual suspects (HE, or am i confusing with 
192.88.99/24?) and (iirc) some (well anycasted) root operators...?

those who "don't buy transit" could (should) run their instances, or 
peer with AS112 without telling anyone.

Just sayin' that it's worth thinking twice about it.
If not for the traffic, then for latency from far away.
In the past, having been connected to a "network that doesn't buy 
transit" in UK, that sent traffic to <letter>.root-servers.net to 
Thailand, just because that one was a customer (or customer's customer) 
... left me unimpressed.


> In the past I have used AS112 as a test tenant on new anycast
> infrastructure in order to do end-to-end testing. It's a service with
> live traffic and no reasonable end-user expectations, so it's kind of
> perfect for that.
> 
> Whether you or I think that these routes *should* be advertised for
> transit, I think it would be unreasonable to insist that they should
> not.

Yep. I'm not insisting they don't. Am suggesting there are (many) cases 
where one should think twice.

Who would want their resolver to ask an auth far away for such an 
important query.... ;-)


Frank

From geier at geier.ne.tz  Fri Nov  2 18:17:50 2018
From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 21:17:50 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <d1d14ab8-ee05-8b46-6840-3aa89da87ec2@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <d1d14ab8-ee05-8b46-6840-3aa89da87ec2@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <7edd5ca0-4695-d451-c06a-7515332e5a97@geier.ne.tz>

Hi,

On 02/11/2018 20:32, Grant Taylor via as112-ops wrote:
> Would it be worth while to originate the AS112 prefixes to all peers 
> willing to accept it with the don't (re)export attribute?? That way 
> directly connected peers (that accept the advertisement) will benefit. 
> But people further away won't be drawn towards your AS112 instance?

So "long time ago", as customer of "large network" connecting in 
London(UK) my packets to a root server were sent to Thailand. I strongly 
believe to a customer of "large network".
If the customer would advertise with the NO_EXPORT community, it would 
still get the same result. my packets would go there.
Whilst surely the root server was also available in Europe (I think it 
was the first that was in Europe, iirc)[1] and probably was at that time 
also present in London.

[1]
the pun that the remark started with the root letter was not intended.

So: the big player peering of "golden prefix" would have saved them some 
transport cost, and "cost them" less traffic to a customer (they want 
more), but made another customer (me) unhappy because of latency...

Frank

From jonathan.stewart at gmail.com  Fri Nov  2 20:09:59 2018
From: jonathan.stewart at gmail.com (Jonathan Stewart)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 15:09:59 -0500
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
Message-ID: <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

> On 02/11/2018 18:40, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> >> On Nov 2, 2018, at 06:09, Siyuan Miao <aveline at misaka.io> wrote:
>
> >> We're having issues when announce AS112 prefixes to some certain
> >> providers and they ask us LOA for AS112 prefixes.
> >> Would that be possible to issue a LOA for this?
>
You should never issue an LOA for AS112. From whom would any
"authorization" come? If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the
RFC, there's a good chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes correctly.

- as an IXP, you offer it to all your peers, as value added service that
> doesn't cost you anything
> - as a $provider, you offer it to all your customers, to get have them
> get the negative answers to the useless queries as fast as possible, and
> without "costing" you anything
>
 In my case i just send my $dayjob customers' AS112-destination packets to
the AS112 node our local IX (MBIX.ca).  No need to place an AS112 node in
our own network since there's a very close available instance.

But [noting there are enough other instances in the world] why would I
> want to tell my upstream: here, all your other customers, your peers,
> everyone, from the other side of the globe, send that traffic to me, I
> pay for it, <sarcasm>and when it's from the other side of the globe
> we'll together make sure it takes as long as possible</sarcasm>.
>
> I just believe AS112 packets shouldn't travel far.
>

I completely agree with you here. As a local AS112 operator, I'm trying to
improve DNS for local ISPs and their customers. People within 500 km. I'm
not trying to help ISPs on other continents fix broken DNS. Remember that
AS112 doesn't receive any packets from well-run recursive resolvers.

Cheers,
Jonathan
[Operating AS112 in Winnipeg, CA]


>
>
> Thanks,
> Frank
> [operating AS112 in TZ]
> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops
>


-- 
     Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181102/d4865c5d/attachment.html>

From matt at dns-oarc.net  Sat Nov  3 13:15:03 2018
From: matt at dns-oarc.net (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 09:15:03 -0400
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5D29C8E5-9701-490D-AB43-571D84E6B3D6@dns-oarc.net>



> On Nov 2, 2018, at 16:09, Jonathan Stewart <jonathan.stewart at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> You should never issue an LOA for AS112. From whom would any "authorization" come?

If one was written, it would come from DNS-OARC, as the current stewards of the resources.

Matt Pounsett
DNS-OARC Systems Engineering



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181103/7ad26e4b/attachment.sig>

From jabley at hopcount.ca  Sat Nov  3 18:52:33 2018
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 11:52:33 -0700
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jonathan,

On Nov 3, 2018, at 04:09, Jonathan Stewart <jonathan.stewart at gmail.com> wrote:

> If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the RFC, there's a good chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes correctly.

What special handling do AS112 prefixes need compared to any other
prefix from the perspective of a transit provider?


Joe

From geier at geier.ne.tz  Sun Nov  4 00:43:55 2018
From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 03:43:55 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <34f64c01-6c8f-af2d-ed0f-f1ba0b1b893c@geier.ne.tz>

Hi Joe,

On 03/11/2018 21:52, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> On Nov 3, 2018, at 04:09, Jonathan Stewart <jonathan.stewart at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the RFC, there's a good chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes correctly.
> 
> What special handling do AS112 prefixes need compared to any other
> prefix from the perspective of a transit provider?

My thinking is that a transit provider covering large geographies 
learning AS112 these prefixes from customers SHOULD (not MUST) give them 
same local-pref as from peerings, so that traffic doesn't travel around 
the globe.
(better would be their own instances, ideally sprinkled $everywhere)

Thinking the other way, every provider could have them as their 
self-operated "customers" in many POPs.

The questions really is about what's more important: do we want to give 
fast answers to a customer resolver [by running our own AS112 or peering 
it off everywhere, by preferring peerings as much as customers], or do 
we want to transport bits over distances[from the resolver to a paying 
customer's AS112] and charge for it [by preferring a customer more].

And the answer to this question might be different for different network 
operators.

So I think of the LOA as a weapon, which the provider can use to shoot 
themselves into the foot. If they don't think twice.


Frank

From todd.crane at simeonnetworks.com  Sun Nov  4 03:43:42 2018
From: todd.crane at simeonnetworks.com (Todd Crane)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 20:43:42 -0700
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <34f64c01-6c8f-af2d-ed0f-f1ba0b1b893c@geier.ne.tz>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <34f64c01-6c8f-af2d-ed0f-f1ba0b1b893c@geier.ne.tz>
Message-ID: <CADPhb2zJg=C7SN6LiXKakXuHSTjhvqqkco7Euy7iEafAyFtyKA@mail.gmail.com>

When did latency become a priority for AS112? My understanding is that
AS112 was designed to help lift the burden of improperly ran/configured dns
resolvers by answering certain queries it shouldn?t be asking. Furthermore,
by implementing anycast, that burden is spread across a bunch of volunteers
instead of overloading a single one. If that is in fact the problem we?re
trying to solve, how does potentially adding 10-20ms to travel across the
country or even continent, become ?not good enough? to solve the problem?

I understand that speed/latency is a key metric in many instances, but if
that is the case here, we need to be more intentional about the types of
servers, the load on those servers, the network topography of the nodes,
etc. Each one of those factors introduces significantly more latency than
transporting bits an extra 1000 miles over a fiber network.

I feel like we shouldn?t stand in the way if someone wants to take on a
bigger portion of the load, provided they can handle it. In fact, we should
thank them.

</2?>

?Todd



On Nov 3, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

Hi Joe,

On 03/11/2018 21:52, Joe Abley wrote:

Hi Jonathan,
On Nov 3, 2018, at 04:09, Jonathan Stewart <jonathan.stewart at gmail.com>
wrote:

If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the RFC, there's a good
chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes correctly.

What special handling do AS112 prefixes need compared to any other
prefix from the perspective of a transit provider?


My thinking is that a transit provider covering large geographies learning
AS112 these prefixes from customers SHOULD (not MUST) give them same
local-pref as from peerings, so that traffic doesn't travel around the
globe.
(better would be their own instances, ideally sprinkled $everywhere)

Thinking the other way, every provider could have them as their
self-operated "customers" in many POPs.

The questions really is about what's more important: do we want to give
fast answers to a customer resolver [by running our own AS112 or peering it
off everywhere, by preferring peerings as much as customers], or do we want
to transport bits over distances[from the resolver to a paying customer's
AS112] and charge for it [by preferring a customer more].

And the answer to this question might be different for different network
operators.

So I think of the LOA as a weapon, which the provider can use to shoot
themselves into the foot. If they don't think twice.


Frank
_______________________________________________
as112-ops mailing list
as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181103/c83cec17/attachment.html>

From geier at geier.ne.tz  Sun Nov  4 05:44:03 2018
From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 08:44:03 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <CADPhb2zJg=C7SN6LiXKakXuHSTjhvqqkco7Euy7iEafAyFtyKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <34f64c01-6c8f-af2d-ed0f-f1ba0b1b893c@geier.ne.tz>
 <CADPhb2zJg=C7SN6LiXKakXuHSTjhvqqkco7Euy7iEafAyFtyKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9263480e-22d0-95cd-d174-20cacc8676c4@geier.ne.tz>

Hi,

I practically agree with all Todd has said here.
Yes, we should *not* stand in their way.
And the traffic to AS112 is really not that urgent. true.
I was thinking a bit about the state that the resolvers have to keep 
open... (over unnecessarily long time)
But then it's a case where the pain of bad configuration hurts exactly 
at the place of root cause - so i like it ;-)

just the "10-20ms" i feel is on the low side.
In the previous example to a root, it was over 400ms for the scenic route.
 From a looking glass about 1-2ms away from me now, I can see a 
traceroute to 192.175.48.1 with 130ms (to a peering).
[While AS112 could also be 1 ms away from the LG over another potential 
peering, but that's absolutely a different issue.]

Or let's take the 330ms in https://pastebin.com/SXA69EhJ

So I'm in favour of letting them do it.
I just want providers to see that an AS112 instance is not completely 
the same as any other (unicast) client.
[which i'm afraid might drive some to advertise to upstream]

Frank


On 04/11/2018 06:43, Todd Crane wrote:
> When did latency become a priority for AS112? My understanding is
> that AS112 was designed to help lift the burden of improperly
> ran/configured dns resolvers by answering certain queries it
> shouldn?t be asking. Furthermore, by implementing anycast, that
> burden is spread across a bunch of volunteers instead of overloading
> a single one. If that is in fact the problem we?re trying to solve,
> how does potentially adding 10-20ms to travel across the country or
> even continent, become ?not good enough? to solve the problem?
> 
> I understand that speed/latency is a key metric in many instances,
> but if that is the case here, we need to be more intentional about
> the types of servers, the load on those servers, the network
> topography of the nodes, etc. Each one of those factors introduces
> significantly more latency than transporting bits an extra 1000 miles
> over a fiber network.
> 
> I feel like we shouldn?t stand in the way if someone wants to take on
> a bigger portion of the load, provided they can handle it. In fact,
> we should thank them.
> 
> </2?>
> 
> ?Todd
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 3, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz 
>> <mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Joe,
>> 
>> On 03/11/2018 21:52, Joe Abley wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan, On Nov 3, 2018, at 04:09, Jonathan Stewart 
>>> <jonathan.stewart at gmail.com <mailto:jonathan.stewart at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the RFC,
>>>> there's a good chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes
>>>> correctly.
>>> What special handling do AS112 prefixes need compared to any
>>> other prefix from the perspective of a transit provider?
>> 
>> My thinking is that a transit provider covering large geographies 
>> learning AS112 these prefixes from customers SHOULD (not MUST) give
>>  them same local-pref as from peerings, so that traffic doesn't
>> travel around the globe. (better would be their own instances,
>> ideally sprinkled $everywhere)
>> 
>> Thinking the other way, every provider could have them as their 
>> self-operated "customers" in many POPs.
>> 
>> The questions really is about what's more important: do we want to
>>  give fast answers to a customer resolver [by running our own AS112
>> or peering it off everywhere, by preferring peerings as much as 
>> customers], or do we want to transport bits over distances[from the
>>  resolver to a paying customer's AS112] and charge for it [by 
>> preferring a customer more].
>> 
>> And the answer to this question might be different for different 
>> network operators.
>> 
>> So I think of the LOA as a weapon, which the provider can use to
>> shoot themselves into the foot. If they don't think twice.
>> 
>> 
>> Frank _______________________________________________ as112-ops
>> mailing list as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
>> <mailto:as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net> 
>> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops
> 

From noc at truenetwork.ru  Mon Nov  5 14:51:08 2018
From: noc at truenetwork.ru (=?utf-8?B?0KHQu9GD0LbQsdCwINGC0LXRhdC90LjRh9C10YHQutC+0Lkg0L/QvtC00LTQtdGA0LbQutC4INCi0YA=?= =?utf-8?B?0YPQvdC10YLQstC+0YDQug==?=)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 20:51:08 +0600
Subject: [as112-ops] AS112 node in RU,Novosibirsk
Message-ID: <20082681541429468@sas1-a3690af4eda2.qloud-c.yandex.net>

Hello AS112 Ops, 
Could you please list us on the website as112.net?

Our Transit AS AS49673 (Truenetwork LLC) and Peering-IX AS59954 (TN-IX.net) for AS112.
Location node: Russia, Novosibirsk
Unicast Addresses: 94.247.111.86
Statistics: as112.tn-ix.net

Best regards,
Eugene

From matt at dns-oarc.net  Mon Nov  5 15:27:37 2018
From: matt at dns-oarc.net (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 10:27:37 -0500
Subject: [as112-ops] AS112 node in RU,Novosibirsk
In-Reply-To: <20082681541429468@sas1-a3690af4eda2.qloud-c.yandex.net>
References: <20082681541429468@sas1-a3690af4eda2.qloud-c.yandex.net>
Message-ID: <E9263446-2306-487E-B92A-170B4B8F0BF1@dns-oarc.net>



> On Nov 5, 2018, at 09:51, ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? <noc at truenetwork.ru> wrote:
> 
> Hello AS112 Ops,
> Could you please list us on the website as112.net?
> 
> Our Transit AS AS49673 (Truenetwork LLC) and Peering-IX AS59954 (TN-IX.net) for AS112.
> Location node: Russia, Novosibirsk
> Unicast Addresses: 94.247.111.86
> Statistics: as112.tn-ix.net

The listing has been updated.  Please have a look at let me know if there are any issues with it.
<https://www.as112.net/ops-listing.html>

Matt Pounsett
DNS-OARC Systems Engineering



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181105/666bdf66/attachment.sig>

From noc at truenetwork.ru  Mon Nov  5 15:34:08 2018
From: noc at truenetwork.ru (=?utf-8?B?0KHQu9GD0LbQsdCwINGC0LXRhdC90LjRh9C10YHQutC+0Lkg0L/QvtC00LTQtdGA0LbQutC4INCi0YA=?= =?utf-8?B?0YPQvdC10YLQstC+0YDQug==?=)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 21:34:08 +0600
Subject: [as112-ops] AS112 node in RU,Novosibirsk
In-Reply-To: <E9263446-2306-487E-B92A-170B4B8F0BF1@dns-oarc.net>
References: <20082681541429468@sas1-a3690af4eda2.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <E9263446-2306-487E-B92A-170B4B8F0BF1@dns-oarc.net>
Message-ID: <60471271541432048@iva8-3af116a85b74.qloud-c.yandex.net>

Hello Matt,

fix url https://truenetwork.ru/

Best regards,
Eugene

05.11.2018, 21:27, "Matthew Pounsett" <matt at dns-oarc.net>:
>> ?On Nov 5, 2018, at 09:51, ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? <noc at truenetwork.ru> wrote:
>>
>> ?Hello AS112 Ops,
>> ?Could you please list us on the website as112.net?
>>
>> ?Our Transit AS AS49673 (Truenetwork LLC) and Peering-IX AS59954 (TN-IX.net) for AS112.
>> ?Location node: Russia, Novosibirsk
>> ?Unicast Addresses: 94.247.111.86
>> ?Statistics: as112.tn-ix.net
>
> The listing has been updated. Please have a look at let me know if there are any issues with it.
> <https://www.as112.net/ops-listing.html>
>
> Matt Pounsett
> DNS-OARC Systems Engineering

From matt at dns-oarc.net  Mon Nov  5 15:50:56 2018
From: matt at dns-oarc.net (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 10:50:56 -0500
Subject: [as112-ops] AS112 node in RU,Novosibirsk
In-Reply-To: <60471271541432048@iva8-3af116a85b74.qloud-c.yandex.net>
References: <20082681541429468@sas1-a3690af4eda2.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <E9263446-2306-487E-B92A-170B4B8F0BF1@dns-oarc.net>
 <60471271541432048@iva8-3af116a85b74.qloud-c.yandex.net>
Message-ID: <FE750C3A-FA62-4053-97E0-F03E7A85E64E@dns-oarc.net>



> On Nov 5, 2018, at 10:34, ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? <noc at truenetwork.ru> wrote:
> 
> https://truenetwork.ru/

Sorry about that.. fixed now.


Matt Pounsett
DNS-OARC Systems Engineering



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181105/2f4d2516/attachment.sig>

From noc at truenetwork.ru  Mon Nov  5 15:53:25 2018
From: noc at truenetwork.ru (=?utf-8?B?0KHQu9GD0LbQsdCwINGC0LXRhdC90LjRh9C10YHQutC+0Lkg0L/QvtC00LTQtdGA0LbQutC4INCi0YA=?= =?utf-8?B?0YPQvdC10YLQstC+0YDQug==?=)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 21:53:25 +0600
Subject: [as112-ops] AS112 node in RU,Novosibirsk
In-Reply-To: <FE750C3A-FA62-4053-97E0-F03E7A85E64E@dns-oarc.net>
References: <20082681541429468@sas1-a3690af4eda2.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <E9263446-2306-487E-B92A-170B4B8F0BF1@dns-oarc.net>
 <60471271541432048@iva8-3af116a85b74.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <FE750C3A-FA62-4053-97E0-F03E7A85E64E@dns-oarc.net>
Message-ID: <59889681541433205@iva3-0d9a30469759.qloud-c.yandex.net>

It's ok
Thanks You

05.11.2018, 21:51, "Matthew Pounsett" <matt at dns-oarc.net>:
>> ?On Nov 5, 2018, at 10:34, ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? <noc at truenetwork.ru> wrote:
>>
>> ?https://truenetwork.ru/
>
> Sorry about that.. fixed now.
>
> Matt Pounsett
> DNS-OARC Systems Engineering

From as112-ops at trex.fi  Tue Nov  6 15:54:39 2018
From: as112-ops at trex.fi (Aleksi Suhonen)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:54:39 +0200
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>

Hello,

On 03/11/2018 20:52, Joe Abley wrote:
>> If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the RFC, there's a
>> good chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes correctly.
> 
> What special handling do AS112 prefixes need compared to any other 
> prefix from the perspective of a transit provider?

IMO, the transit should prefer IGP metric over AS Path length and 
customer relationship. This may be impossible with current existing 
technology, but this is still what I think. /: - )

I wonder if we should recommend that all AS112 announcements were tagged 
with "tier 1 local preference communities" for setting the local 
preference to be the same as that of peered routes. So even if they are 
accidentally leaked to transits, they would keep routing reasonable.

I fished a few such communities from: https://onestep.net/communities/

1299:150 2914:470 1273:80 7018:80

While I was fishing, I noticed that some of them don't seem to have a 
community for matching peers exactly. I suppose in those cases the 
community that is just below peer local preference should be picked...

On 02/11/2018 19:32, Grant Taylor wrote:
 > Would it be worth while to originate the AS112 prefixes to all peers
 > willing to accept it with the don't (re)export attribute?  That way
 > directly connected peers (that accept the advertisement) will benefit.
 > But people further away won't be drawn towards your AS112 instance?

I consider using no-export for AS112 harmful:

When the receiving AS has transit customers, they won't receive the 
prefix. If those transit customers operate a default-free network, they 
will blackhole the traffic.


> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops

This thing (along with the subject line modification) breaks DKIM 
signatures. I wouldn't mind if they were removed, because I'm savvy 
enough to know I'm on the mailing list.

Mailman also has the option setting for removing DKIM signatures that it 
has broken. I would condone using that setting on this list as well.

Nit picking as always,

-- 
	Aleksi Suhonen / TREX

From jabley at hopcount.ca  Tue Nov  6 16:06:01 2018
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 08:06:01 -0800
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
Message-ID: <CAJhMdTOpGHoyai+=EteAHkX0u6h2Zve9P3t4zc5iqdVV9=saPA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Aleksi,

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 22:54, Aleksi Suhonen <as112-ops at trex.fi> wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2018 20:52, Joe Abley wrote:
>>> If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the RFC, there's a
>>> good chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes correctly.
>> What special handling do AS112 prefixes need compared to any other prefix from the perspective of a transit provider?
>
> IMO, the transit should prefer IGP metric over AS Path length and customer relationship. This may be impossible with current existing technology, but this is still what I think. /: - )

I like the way you think.

Documenting particular choices made in particular networks seems like
a good way to help people make their own good decisions. I wouldn't
want to suggest to anybody that they must do things in a particular
way, though; their networks, their rules.


Joe

From bbonev at ipacct.com  Tue Nov  6 21:10:00 2018
From: bbonev at ipacct.com (Boian Bonev)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 02:40:00 +0530
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
Message-ID: <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Aleksi,

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:26 PM Aleksi Suhonen <as112-ops at trex.fi> wrote:

> On 03/11/2018 20:52, Joe Abley wrote:
> >> If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the RFC, there's a
> >> good chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes correctly.
> >
> > What special handling do AS112 prefixes need compared to any other
> > prefix from the perspective of a transit provider?
>
> IMO, the transit should prefer IGP metric over AS Path length and
> customer relationship. This may be impossible with current existing
> technology, but this is still what I think. /: - )
>

I believe that the transit ISP should not treat AS112 prefixes in a special
way. It should be the hosting operator responsibility to assign the
appropriate communities (as proposed below).

And in case an operator somehow attracts all AS112 traffic to his node, it
should be all up to him, because as far as I understand how stuff works,
the main goal of AS112 is to shift senseless load away from the roots...
If latency to AS112 is an issue for an ISP, then this means they have lots
of mis-configured/outdated DNS servers on their network and they can most
appropriately handle the case by deploying a local AS112 node. If they are
not big enough to be able to afford that, then it means it is much easier
to fix their DNS servers instead.

It is quite a different story for root servers, where latency is important,
requires attention and affects services...

I wonder if we should recommend that all AS112 announcements were tagged
> with "tier 1 local preference communities" for setting the local
> preference to be the same as that of peered routes. So even if they are
> accidentally leaked to transits, they would keep routing reasonable.
>
> I fished a few such communities from: https://onestep.net/communities/
>
> 1299:150 2914:470 1273:80 7018:80
>
> While I was fishing, I noticed that some of them don't seem to have a
> community for matching peers exactly. I suppose in those cases the
> community that is just below peer local preference should be picked...
>

As we happen to host a couple of anycast root DNS servers as well and got
involved into solving the before mentioned problem (traffic from another
continent hitting our node as best path), it seems to be appropriate to
create a recommendation for AS112 based on what root operators do for the
anycast nodes - decrease the local preference by tier1 specific communities
on prefixes announced. Here are couple of additions for this purpose:

3356:80 6453:70

That would not work in case their upstreams are not tier1 and do not pass
communities received.


> On 02/11/2018 19:32, Grant Taylor wrote:
>  > Would it be worth while to originate the AS112 prefixes to all peers
>  > willing to accept it with the don't (re)export attribute?  That way
>  > directly connected peers (that accept the advertisement) will benefit.
>  > But people further away won't be drawn towards your AS112 instance?
>
> I consider using no-export for AS112 harmful:
>
> When the receiving AS has transit customers, they won't receive the
> prefix. If those transit customers operate a default-free network, they
> will blackhole the traffic.
>

True. Also in the extreme case where every single AS112 node sets
no-export, it will become unreachable in some parts of the world.

With best regards,
b.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181107/1115ed5e/attachment.html>

From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net  Tue Nov  6 22:10:16 2018
From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:10:16 -0700
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
 <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>

On 11/06/2018 02:10 PM, Boian Bonev wrote:
> If they are not big enough to be able to afford... (deploying a local AS112 node)

I must be thinking about things wrong.  I feel like an old salvage (or 
even a Raspberry Pi) could function as an AS112 node for smaller operations.

I don't think that it even requires BGP to sink and properly respond to 
rogue queries.  It just requires routes from clients to it.

Obviously this is not the level of a public AS112 node.

What am I missing?



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3982 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181106/69c20b9f/attachment.bin>

From matt at dns-oarc.net  Tue Nov  6 23:03:51 2018
From: matt at dns-oarc.net (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 18:03:51 -0500
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
 <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>

I think we're getting a long way off the topic of whether an LOA would be useful, or whether there are better ways to convince upstreams to carry the routes.  Most of the discussion has surrounded how people prefer AS112 be routed, as opposed to how to get AS112 routes accepted in the first place.  It doesn't seem like we're solving Siyuan's problem.

So, in an attempt to refocus things .. assume that an AS112 operator has good reasons for wanting to announce AS112 prefixes over transit.

Has anyone had problems convincing an upstream to accept AS112 routes where pointing them at the RFC was not sufficient?  Did something else work, or were you left not being able to get routes accepted by that upstream?  I'm trying to get at whether there are common cases where an LOA would be useful.

Matt Pounsett
DNS-OARC Systems Engineering



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181106/02cd0a5c/attachment-0001.sig>

From john at vanoppen.com  Wed Nov  7 01:57:51 2018
From: john at vanoppen.com (John van Oppen)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:57:51 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
 <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
 <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>
Message-ID: <MWHPR19MB1438191635F5AF9F11882D78ABC40@MWHPR19MB1438.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

I think it depends how much of a known party someone is to a transit.   I never had any trouble getting them announced, but I have contacts at all of our transits and announce thousands of prefixes.

For a small network the experience could be much different. 


John 

-----Original Message-----
From: as112-ops <as112-ops-bounces at dns-oarc.net> On Behalf Of Matthew Pounsett
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 1:04 PM
To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net>
Cc: as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
Subject: Re: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes

I think we're getting a long way off the topic of whether an LOA would be useful, or whether there are better ways to convince upstreams to carry the routes.  Most of the discussion has surrounded how people prefer AS112 be routed, as opposed to how to get AS112 routes accepted in the first place.  It doesn't seem like we're solving Siyuan's problem.

So, in an attempt to refocus things .. assume that an AS112 operator has good reasons for wanting to announce AS112 prefixes over transit.

Has anyone had problems convincing an upstream to accept AS112 routes where pointing them at the RFC was not sufficient?  Did something else work, or were you left not being able to get routes accepted by that upstream?  I'm trying to get at whether there are common cases where an LOA would be useful.

Matt Pounsett
DNS-OARC Systems Engineering





From jabley at hopcount.ca  Wed Nov  7 05:30:57 2018
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:30:57 +0700
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR19MB1438191635F5AF9F11882D78ABC40@MWHPR19MB1438.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
 <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
 <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>
 <MWHPR19MB1438191635F5AF9F11882D78ABC40@MWHPR19MB1438.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <624D7237-06B5-4EEE-AF51-95606E420482@hopcount.ca>

I feel like I've typed enough words in this thread that I might as well just type up a LOA.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14jq-ceIBhD0dVX1VqV74PkP8TAlTfY9MUkCR1ytSnt0/edit?usp=sharing

:-)

> On 7 Nov 2018, at 08:57, John van Oppen <john at vanoppen.com> wrote:
> 
> I think it depends how much of a known party someone is to a transit.   I never had any trouble getting them announced, but I have contacts at all of our transits and announce thousands of prefixes.
> 
> For a small network the experience could be much different. 
> 
> 
> John 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: as112-ops <as112-ops-bounces at dns-oarc.net> On Behalf Of Matthew Pounsett
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 1:04 PM
> To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net>
> Cc: as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> Subject: Re: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
> 
> I think we're getting a long way off the topic of whether an LOA would be useful, or whether there are better ways to convince upstreams to carry the routes.  Most of the discussion has surrounded how people prefer AS112 be routed, as opposed to how to get AS112 routes accepted in the first place.  It doesn't seem like we're solving Siyuan's problem.
> 
> So, in an attempt to refocus things .. assume that an AS112 operator has good reasons for wanting to announce AS112 prefixes over transit.
> 
> Has anyone had problems convincing an upstream to accept AS112 routes where pointing them at the RFC was not sufficient?  Did something else work, or were you left not being able to get routes accepted by that upstream?  I'm trying to get at whether there are common cases where an LOA would be useful.
> 
> Matt Pounsett
> DNS-OARC Systems Engineering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops



From geier at geier.ne.tz  Wed Nov  7 05:46:57 2018
From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 08:46:57 +0300
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
 <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
 <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>
Message-ID: <301a00d1-a537-c471-1c2d-39b9454a7f53@geier.ne.tz>

Hi,

On 07/11/2018 02:03, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> I think we're getting a long way off the topic of whether an LOA
> would be useful, or whether there are better ways to convince
> upstreams to carry the routes.  Most of the discussion has surrounded
> how people prefer AS112 be routed, as opposed to how to get AS112
> routes accepted in the first place.  It doesn't seem like we're
> solving Siyuan's problem.
> 
> So, in an attempt to refocus things .. assume that an AS112 operator
> has good reasons for wanting to announce AS112 prefixes over
> transit.
> 
> Has anyone had problems convincing an upstream to accept AS112 routes
> where pointing them at the RFC was not sufficient?  Did something
> else work, or were you left not being able to get routes accepted by
> that upstream?  I'm trying to get at whether there are common cases
> where an LOA would be useful.

Seems like you're looking for data about how big the problem is, that's 
fine - my input below.

But I'd say: even if one or two operators have issues - and OP Siyuan 
has issues -
[and preferably if they have considered and accepted the possibility of 
attracting [a lot of] traffic from far away]
- then OARC should provide a LOA for AS112 instance operators.

The data (how many have problems) should help to judge whether you want 
a generic LOA or for once off make specific one(s).



Data of my case:
- AS112 is operated by the IXP.
- currently still as "downstream customer" of IXP management net, not on
    the IXP peering LAN, I have to fix this.
- IXP doesn't want AS112 advertised to upstream(s)
in my dayjob:
- we're upstream provider of the IXP (management net).
- have no request from IXP (=my other hat) to accept AS112
- am happy with AS112 at the IXP, no reason to deploy own AS112
- would be hesitant to accept AS112 on transit connection for IXP
    (management net), and to advertise to upstreams, would prefer to add
    3356:70 and 6453:70 to get upstreams to lower-pref
- if still would have to do it, adding AS112 into our AS-SET in IRR
    would do the job. [1]


Regards,
Frank

PS: Nice letter, Joe!
I made 2 little suggestion in the doc
Presuming also the there should be space for someone from OARC to sign?


[1]
whois -h whois.radb.net 192.175.48.0/24
show a lot of stuff that could possibly be called garbage...


From jabley at hopcount.ca  Wed Nov  7 06:57:39 2018
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:57:39 +0700
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <301a00d1-a537-c471-1c2d-39b9454a7f53@geier.ne.tz>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
 <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
 <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>
 <301a00d1-a537-c471-1c2d-39b9454a7f53@geier.ne.tz>
Message-ID: <0CFA35C4-2AF2-4CDD-9629-B60154474015@hopcount.ca>

On 7 Nov 2018, at 12:46, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

> PS: Nice letter, Joe!
> I made 2 little suggestion in the doc

I accepted them!

> Presuming also the there should be space for someone from OARC to sign?

Yep, makes sense.

> [1]
> whois -h whois.radb.net 192.175.48.0/24
> show a lot of stuff that could possibly be called garbage...

I suspect that anybody who was able to volunteer time to make the various route objects clear and consistent could just open a ticket with some proposed changes.

Similarly. publishing a ROA for each of the four routes might be a fun thing to do during a slow Friday afternoon.

The web page looks like it could use a little love.

There isn't all that much to clean up here. I'm pretty sure if a couple of people wanted to volunteer to work as AS112 janitors and do some spring cleaning the OARC management might well be supportive.


Joe

From keith at dns-oarc.net  Wed Nov  7 19:24:09 2018
From: keith at dns-oarc.net (Keith Mitchell)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:24:09 -0500
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <0CFA35C4-2AF2-4CDD-9629-B60154474015@hopcount.ca>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
 <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
 <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>
 <301a00d1-a537-c471-1c2d-39b9454a7f53@geier.ne.tz>
 <0CFA35C4-2AF2-4CDD-9629-B60154474015@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <1e9f5bda-31f2-37c5-3e48-208f53c5720e@dns-oarc.net>

On 11/07/2018 01:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2018, at 12:46, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> 
>> PS: Nice letter, Joe! I made 2 little suggestion in the doc
> 
> I accepted them!

Indeed, thank you Joe, from an OARC PoV the text looks pretty good to
me. My only thoughts are to add some kind of hold-harmless disclaimer to
avoid OARC being made liable for any adverse consequences of such prefix
announcements. If folks think that's reasonable I can check in with our
lawyers for wording.

>> Presuming also the there should be space for someone from OARC to
>> sign?

I've added something for that and a bit of entity boilerplate as
suggestions.

We'd obviously all like to live in a world where such an LoA is not
needed. It's entirely possible that just posting this letter as
boiler-plate that can be referred to on the as112.net site will be
sufficient for many in itself. However, if folks would like a copy of
the letter signed by OARC sent to any upstreams/peers/IXPs, please
contact us via <admin at dns-oarc.net> and we'll be happy to oblige.

>> whois -h whois.radb.net 192.175.48.0/24 show a lot of stuff that
>> could possibly be called garbage...
> 
> I suspect that anybody who was able to volunteer time to make the
> various route objects clear and consistent could just open a ticket
> with some proposed changes.
> 
> Similarly. publishing a ROA for each of the four routes might be a
> fun thing to do during a slow Friday afternoon.
> 
> The web page looks like it could use a little love.
> 
> There isn't all that much to clean up here. I'm pretty sure if a
> couple of people wanted to volunteer to work as AS112 janitors and do
> some spring cleaning the OARC management might well be supportive.

Some volunteer help on this kind of housekeeping work would be most
welcome :)

Keith

From matt at dns-oarc.net  Wed Nov  7 19:40:54 2018
From: matt at dns-oarc.net (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:40:54 -0500
Subject: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
In-Reply-To: <0CFA35C4-2AF2-4CDD-9629-B60154474015@hopcount.ca>
References: <CAH9MeJZiTQk-oFsMT3QMZm+JHoD0LhAmjgnXSKANTBBh2WEh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D145686F-7080-47FD-B2ED-F76776BCC178@dns-oarc.net>
 <aca8870e-f6a0-ef2c-8fc3-49567a4935cf@geier.ne.tz>
 <CA+K1SUzppsgJqM2Tue8jq9w4F=-nh3O-W9J3bcTVXTQRG0=cxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhMdTOT=J00ZorU0xOa3+ZjSN6At0Bsa==hiuiAgnyqVaph5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <21ba870a-af42-5950-eb34-6548b5c31849@trex.fi>
 <CAD53P8AqF09SMPArSS3BbUr0tCWwzVJBmN7JEY8VTvqZZiM7tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c383144b-3376-1f2b-8ff1-bb276aaface6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
 <604C10AA-D4BF-4AEC-A1C4-3AC1B4EF5A69@dns-oarc.net>
 <301a00d1-a537-c471-1c2d-39b9454a7f53@geier.ne.tz>
 <0CFA35C4-2AF2-4CDD-9629-B60154474015@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <3679D2ED-3F66-41BA-98E2-9FF760EB4606@dns-oarc.net>



> On Nov 7, 2018, at 01:57, Joe Abley <jabley at hopcount.ca> wrote:
> 
> On 7 Nov 2018, at 12:46, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> 
>> PS: Nice letter, Joe!
>> I made 2 little suggestion in the doc
> 
> I accepted them!

I'm re-posting the URL since I think this email didn't make it to the list.  We had a bit of a glitch last night.  Thanks for writing this up, Joe!

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14jq-ceIBhD0dVX1VqV74PkP8TAlTfY9MUkCR1ytSnt0/edit?usp=sharing>

> 
>> Presuming also the there should be space for someone from OARC to sign?
> 
> Yep, makes sense.

And once we give it a home, I'd also suggest including the URL where the document can be found.

I'm undecided on whether that home should be on the AS112 web site, or on the OARC web site as the resource stewards.  The reason I might lean toward the OARC web site is that it may help with verification of its authenticity.

"Oh yes, this letter on OARC letterhead was obviously obtained from OARC."

> 
>> [1]
>> whois -h whois.radb.net 192.175.48.0/24
>> show a lot of stuff that could possibly be called garbage...
> 
> I suspect that anybody who was able to volunteer time to make the various route objects clear and consistent could just open a ticket with some proposed changes.

I'd certainly have no objection.

> 
> Similarly. publishing a ROA for each of the four routes might be a fun thing to do during a slow Friday afternoon.

That was suggested a few months ago, and it's on the list.  Unfortunately, slow Fridays are in short supply... and reserved for non-service-affecting changes anyway. :)  I will try and get to this in the next couple of months.


> The web page looks like it could use a little love.

It could.  I've been making slow changes to update it and clean it up a bit, but there's a lot there to fix up.


Matt Pounsett
DNS-OARC Systems Engineering



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181107/0589ae06/attachment.sig>

