- Routing-wg - lists.nordu.net

Re: September Routing Working Group Meeting
by Addleman, Hans C 06 Sep '21

06 Sep '21

Reminder of this meeting coming up tomorrow. From: "Addleman, Hans C" <addlema(a)iu.edu> Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 3:18 PM To: "routing-wg(a)lists.gna-g.net" <routing-wg(a)lists.gna-g.net> Subject: [Routing-wg] September Routing Working Group Meeting Greetings all, Our next meeting will be on September 7 at 8pm EST (September 8 12:00AM UTC). You should have received a calendar invite already, however, I have attached an .ics to this mail just in case. On this call we will briefly review work the teams are doing to identify and fix “weird” routes and then Steve Wallace will give a presentation on MANRS (https://www.manrs.org/). Talk abstract: Overview of Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security (MANRS) for network operators. What’s required of number resource owners and network operators to benefit from MANRS, including insights into Internet Routing Registry records, the role of RIRs with RPKI route origin validation, and lessons learned in the case of North American R&E networks. Thanks, Hans Hans Addleman is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom@IU meeting. Topic: Routing Working Group - MANRS Time: Sep 7, 2021 08:00 PM Indiana (East) Join from computer or mobile: https://iu.zoom.us/j/89302424995 Meeting ID: 893 0242 4995 One tap mobile +16465588656,,89302424995# US (New York) +13017158592,,89302424995# US (Washington DC) Dial by your location +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) Meeting ID: 893 0242 4995 IU videoconferencing equipment: 26 893 0242 4995 Videoconferencing equipment outside of IU: SIP: 89302424995(a)zoomcrc.com H.323: 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 221.122.88.195 (China) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia Sydney) 103.122.167.55 (Australia Melbourne) 209.9.211.110 (Hong Kong SAR) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 149.137.68.253 (Mexico) 69.174.57.160 (Canada Toronto) 65.39.152.160 (Canada Vancouver) 207.226.132.110 (Japan Tokyo) 149.137.24.110 (Japan Osaka) Meeting ID: 893 0242 4995 Zoom@IU Team | cthelp(a)iu.edu | https://kb.iu.edu/d/bfqu

1 0

September Routing Working Group Meeting
by Addleman, Hans C 17 Aug '21

17 Aug '21

Greetings all, Our next meeting will be on September 7 at 8pm EST (September 8 12:00AM UTC). You should have received a calendar invite already, however, I have attached an .ics to this mail just in case. On this call we will briefly review work the teams are doing to identify and fix “weird” routes and then Steve Wallace will give a presentation on MANRS (https://www.manrs.org/). Talk abstract: Overview of Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security (MANRS) for network operators. What’s required of number resource owners and network operators to benefit from MANRS, including insights into Internet Routing Registry records, the role of RIRs with RPKI route origin validation, and lessons learned in the case of North American R&E networks. Thanks, Hans Hans Addleman is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom@IU meeting. Topic: Routing Working Group - MANRS Time: Sep 7, 2021 08:00 PM Indiana (East) Join from computer or mobile: https://iu.zoom.us/j/89302424995 Meeting ID: 893 0242 4995 One tap mobile +16465588656,,89302424995# US (New York) +13017158592,,89302424995# US (Washington DC) Dial by your location +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) Meeting ID: 893 0242 4995 IU videoconferencing equipment: 26 893 0242 4995 Videoconferencing equipment outside of IU: SIP: 89302424995(a)zoomcrc.com H.323: 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 221.122.88.195 (China) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia Sydney) 103.122.167.55 (Australia Melbourne) 209.9.211.110 (Hong Kong SAR) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 149.137.68.253 (Mexico) 69.174.57.160 (Canada Toronto) 65.39.152.160 (Canada Vancouver) 207.226.132.110 (Japan Tokyo) 149.137.24.110 (Japan Osaka) Meeting ID: 893 0242 4995 Zoom@IU Team | cthelp(a)iu.edu | https://kb.iu.edu/d/bfqu

1 0

Slides from August 17th Routing Working Group Meeting
by Meade, Brenna 17 Aug '21

17 Aug '21

Hello all, Thank you again for attending the Routing Working Group meeting. We appreciate everyone who participated today, The link below is to the slides from today’s meeting 2021-08-17 Routing WG I have also included a link to the RWG master case list for those interested in seeing the cases that we are working on and their status. https://tinyurl.com/RWG-MCL If you know anyone who is interested in joining the Routing Working Group please send their information to either me or Hans Addleman - addlema(a)iu.edu We look forward to meeting you again on at the next meeting September 7, 8pm US Eastern time (12am UTC) for the MANRS Talk by Steve Wallace. Look for a calendar invite soon for that meeting. Thanks! Brenna Meade Indiana University International Networks

1 0

R&E Network Info
by Akira Kato 17 Aug '21

17 Aug '21

Folks, I am new to GNA-G Routing WG, and may not have up to date information on the current available resources. As my understanding of BGP, it is not easy to give lower preference to AS-PATHs which hop large oceans more than once by just using BGP communities. If there is a list of R&E networks including ASN, Country, representing pingable IPv4 and IPv6 destinations, date and email of last update, it may able to write a script to detect possible suboptimal paths. Does anybody maintain such information? Additionally, "machine readable" list of R&E links, not in beautiful maps, may also help. It may need to include AS numbers of both ends, bandwidth, and distance in km, date and email of last update. IXes can also be represented by the AS numbers of the route servers with special tag similar to type-2 OSPF LSA. RADB may be referable, but it doesn't include all information we may need. PeeringDB is similar. Moreover, many entries doesn't hold completed information and may not be well updated. Sincerely, -- Akira Kato

1 0

Re: August Routing Working Group Meeting - Route Review
by Addleman, Hans C 16 Aug '21

16 Aug '21

Reminder of this month’s Routing Working group meeting tomorrow August 17 at 6AM ET. Calendar invite attached if needed. Thanks, Hans From: "Addleman, Hans C" <addlema(a)iu.edu> Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 9:12 AM To: "routing-wg(a)lists.gna-g.net" <routing-wg(a)lists.gna-g.net> Subject: [Routing-wg] August Routing Working Group Meeting - Route Review Greetings all, You should have received a calendar invite for the next meeting. I have attached a calendar invite to this mail as well. During this meeting we will discuss the routes that we are currently working on as a team. Anyone on this list should be able to access the Master list of routes we are working on currently: https://tinyurl.com/RWG-MCL Thanks, Hans

1 0

August Routing Working Group Meeting - Route Review
by Addleman, Hans C 04 Aug '21

04 Aug '21

Greetings all, You should have received a calendar invite for the next meeting. I have attached a calendar invite to this mail as well. During this meeting we will discuss the routes that we are currently working on as a team. Anyone on this list should be able to access the Master list of routes we are working on currently: https://tinyurl.com/RWG-MCL Thanks, Hans

1 0

Next Routing WG session
by Schopf, Jennifer M 03 Aug '21

03 Aug '21

Our next meeting is part of APAN in about 24 hours – 9am Tuesday Aug 3 Indonesia local time (or 10pm August 2nd US Eastern). Registration for APAN 52 is free, so anyone is welcome to join https://apan52.apan.net/ -j ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Jennifer M. Schopf Director, International Networks Director, Engagement and Performance Operations Center Indiana University

2 1

Re: on publishing interconnection parameters
by Eli Dart 22 Jul '21

22 Jul '21

Hi Pieter, all, As you (and many others here) know, one of the difficulties in all of this is that routing metrics are not bandwidth-aware, latency-aware, or load-aware. Some defaults try to incorporate bandwidth in a limited way, and some metrics can be explicitly configured to account for bandwidth and latency (in ESnet we do this with our IGP metrics), but those semantics are not dynamic. When I was in the ESnet engineering group we used a combination of localpref and communities to manage things like this. My understanding is that the architecture is still in place. The scheme is fairly detailed and complex, but once it's in place it provides a lot of power. Peer networks are grouped according to semantics (R&E, Cloud provider, commercial carrier, transit, etc), and preferred via localpref and BGP community based on peering capacity, whether they provide transit to other networks, etc. However, like in all things in this space, one has to be conscious of bandwidth, latency, etc. because the protocols don't do that on their own. It's easy in a circumstance like this to prefer direct peering over transit (which is generally, but not always, our policy). It's also easy to customize policy at the peering and have the rest of the network follow the policy (local reasoning only). But, it means doing a bunch of work up front. Note that routing that appears weird may actually be correct depending on the needs of the people using the network. For R&E peering I would much rather have a clean 100G than a congested 10G, even if the 100G was 30 milliseconds longer. However, crossing the ocean to go down the road is probably (probably?) pathological. From my perspective, this is part of why the R&E networking community is a community - we work together to build and operate a global data fabric in the service of science. As we all make changes, sometimes we end up with pathological edge cases....this is why tools like NetSage are so valuable, and why community discussions such as this are important for all of us. Thanks, Eli On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 8:39 AM Pieter de Boer <pieter.deboer(a)surf.nl> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > All, > > I can totally second the usage of peeringDB which is the tool of > preference for us (SURF) to get information a network (we we'll likely > integrate this with our automation workflows). We also do publish some info > in the RIPE database ( > https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?searchtext=as-surfnet, which > shows which ASes we provide transit for) or ( > https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true… > which shows with which networks we peer and what we send or accept from > them, this object is uh not up to date....) > > However neither of those two provide the information we need here, we need > to make conscious decisions which network to prefer. Right now for the SURF > ==> Kenia example we make the wrong decision. Below one of our three border > routers (this box has direct peerings with > Internet2/GEANT/Nordunet/AMS-IX/NL-IX/SpeedIX/Asteroid and transit, > redundant or backup peers with Internet2/GEANT/Nordunet/exchanges/transit > reside on the others) > > In our peering policy we (SURF/AS1103) prefer to send traffic to customers > directly, followed by research networks (local pref 300), private peers > (local pref 160, metric 10), exchanges (local pref 160 metirc 20-60), > transit (local pref 150/130). We prefer path via other research networks > since in generall thay have higher capacity than via exchanges/transit. > > In this example option 1, 2, 3, 4 fall in the same category research > peers, with an equal AS-path length (3 AS’es). The battle is on between > route 1, 2 and 3 (route 4 GEANT backup will loose from the GEANT primary > due to set metrics). Since there is no direct tie breaker and we use JunOS > (see > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/general/…) > it is step 11, that does it so the route with the longest route-age wins > for stability. The quick and dirty work-a-round flap both Internet2 > peerings and we switch back to GEANT. > Route 5 is for us a pure exchange route (despite coming from Unbuntunet > alliance for research and education networking), they have some presence in > Amsterdam with interntional links and hence also connect to the AMS-IX. > Route 6 and 7 fall in our transit category and are really last resort as > they are over metered connections. > > Of course as a human we can figure out a path via GEANT is probably far > better than crossing the Atlantic ocean twice via Internet2. The question > how do we get this information into our routers. I don’t see it to create > manual exceptions in our routing policy for every weird route we find, this > is something that will not scale. What I need is information that depicts > the origin of this route something like Africa or maybe even a specific > country, combined with the knowledge GEANT as a network is much closer to > Africa than Internet2 it would make sense to prefer them. > > My proposal if we could come to a common set of BGP communities we add to > our routes that depict continents or countries we can then figure out with > knowledge of the various networks which path between them is better. I > would assume GEANT is able to offer us better routes to European, African > and Asian research networks over Internet2. Where Internet2 probably has > much better connectivity to north American and likely south American > networks. If we could get geographic info in routing advertisements by > communities (preferably a common set), we would know the route to Kenia via > GEANT is better than Internet2. > > Pieter > > ps yesterdays talk was really interesting, nice visualization with Netsage > and good discussions. > > - -- > > SURFnet is transitioning towards SURF, my e-mail adres has changed > accordingly pieter.deboer(a)surfnet.nl got pieter.deboer(a)surf.nl > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dale W. Carder <dwcarder(a)es.net> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2021 14:17 > > To: routing-wg(a)lists.gna-g.net > > Subject: [Routing-wg] on publishing interconnection parameters > > > > > > On the call today the question was raised as to where one should > > publish, and correspondingly where one can find, route policy > > information for a given network. I believe it was Warrick that > > mentioned the (historical) utility of traceroute.org as an example. > > > > At least for commercial peers here in the US, the use of peeringdb.com > > is probably the default interface used today for peering coordination. > > I would claim that it would be of significant utility to R&E networks > > for coordination as well. > > > > From there one can find relevant information such as: > > - URL to a Peering Policy web page w/ additional details > > - URL links to looking glasses (if applicable) > > - additional details in the notes field > > > > For the more specific case of bgp community support, at present this is > > still free-form text that has to go somewhere, but it's not always clear > > where to look. > > > > To pick on my friend Warrick, you can find a good example at: > > https://www.peeringdb.com/net/393 > > Though perhaps in the notes field Warrick could say, "You can find > > supported bgp communities near the bottom of our magnificent 1,174 > > line aut-num record in RADB" > > > > Or for us at https://www.peeringdb.com/net/940 > > Perhaps we should add something to the tune of, "You can find our > > supported traffic engineering bgp communities at /dev/null, best of luck! > > But note for LHCONE VRF peers, we do support the mandatory knobs at > > https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCONE/LhcOneVRF#BGP_communitie > > s" > > > > Dale > > _______________________________________________ > > Routing-wg mailing list -- routing-wg(a)lists.gna-g.net > > To unsubscribe send an email to routing-wg-leave(a)lists.gna-g.net > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Comment: Using gpg4o v6.0.124.9651 - https://www.gpg4o.com/ > Charset: utf-8 > > iHUEAREIAB0WIQQmZT8oGCL/BcrPBy++sI1mNvdT0gUCYPg/owAKCRC+sI1mNvdT > 0pm8AP9jHCF9q6Tn5yH1RBpsyrqH1YmuHdoPZLA421ZGDiBszwD+JNdoiznd+1ir > kwZ4rWGBK9rvj8U2V2+sqQDgy298nCE= > =XqGp > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----_______________________________________________ > Routing-wg mailing list -- routing-wg(a)lists.gna-g.net > To unsubscribe send an email to routing-wg-leave(a)lists.gna-g.net > -- Eli Dart, Network Engineer NOC: (510) 486-7600 ESnet Science Engagement Group (800) 333-7638 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

2 1

on publishing interconnection parameters
by Dale W. Carder 21 Jul '21

21 Jul '21

On the call today the question was raised as to where one should publish, and correspondingly where one can find, route policy information for a given network. I believe it was Warrick that mentioned the (historical) utility of traceroute.org as an example. At least for commercial peers here in the US, the use of peeringdb.com is probably the default interface used today for peering coordination. I would claim that it would be of significant utility to R&E networks for coordination as well. From there one can find relevant information such as: - URL to a Peering Policy web page w/ additional details - URL links to looking glasses (if applicable) - additional details in the notes field For the more specific case of bgp community support, at present this is still free-form text that has to go somewhere, but it's not always clear where to look. To pick on my friend Warrick, you can find a good example at: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/393 Though perhaps in the notes field Warrick could say, "You can find supported bgp communities near the bottom of our magnificent 1,174 line aut-num record in RADB" Or for us at https://www.peeringdb.com/net/940 Perhaps we should add something to the tune of, "You can find our supported traffic engineering bgp communities at /dev/null, best of luck! But note for LHCONE VRF peers, we do support the mandatory knobs at https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCONE/LhcOneVRF#BGP_communities" Dale

2 1

Summary from this morning, Next meeting APAN
by Schopf, Jennifer M 20 Jul '21

20 Jul '21

Hello Routing-WG members Thanks everyone who came to the meeting this morning. Our next meetings are: APAN Routing Working Group BOF, 9am August 3 Indonesia local time (10PM August 2, US Eastern time) 4 weeks from today, same time, walking through the examples (see notes below), 6am August 17, US Eastern time MANRS Talk by Steve Wallace, 8pm September 7, US Eastern time We meant to record today’s talk but that didn’t happen unfortunately. If there’s enough interest/need we can try to do another in the opposite time zone. The slides are available online here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1x07cL8-o38sWHZd-RXSnZLinkj0t02IBXjp… We walked through 4 examples, although there’s a 5th in the slides (slides 17 and 18) for very strange routes between Singapore and New Zealand. These included unexpected the following unexpected routes: NIA (S. Korea) to Microsoft (Singapore) Nanyang Technological University (Singapore) to Education Bureau, Kaohsiung City Government (Taiwan) CERN (Geneva) to KISTI (S. Korea) KENET to SURFnet National University of Singapore to University Otago (New Zealand) We’d like to put together teams to start to address these, with the hopes of using these examples to talk about what infrastructure/documentation we need to address these more generally, and reviewing them at the mid August meeting. Please respond to any of the chairs if you want to be involved in any of these. If the co-chairs decide you’re needed, you may get looped in even if you don’t tell us. We’re hoping these teams will start working on these in the next week with the hopes of having something to report in 4 weeks. Likely these will also be discussed on the Slack channel – so don’t forget to watch there as well. Please get in touch with any questions or comments – see you in 2 weeks at APAN and then at our next regular meeting 2 weeks after that. -jennifer, on behalf of the Routing WG co-chairs ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Jennifer M. Schopf Director, International Networks Director, Engagement and Performance Operations Center Indiana University

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

Routing-wg