North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Qwest Support
I would have to disagree on a lot of these points. See below. Steven Naslund > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Daniel Golding > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:25 PM > To: Andy Dills; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Qwest Support > > > > I suppose. Except it's not even certain you were having a problem of any > kind at all. > > Qwest's presence or absence from public IX's really has nothing to do with > your routes being announced. In fact, Qwest privately peers with all the > other large networks. While there are many peering sessions at the public > NAPs, most traffic is carried over private network interconnects, at least > domestically. Certain peering points in Europe (Linx), tend to > run the other > way. > If the routes cannot be seen at the public IXs then a lot of people who are connected to the public IXs will not see it either. Depends if you are only talking to the "big networks". > In fact, if Qwest were publically peering with other networks, it > might be a > reason why your routes through UUNet were being prefered - private peer > originated routes are almost always assigned higher local preferences in > carrier networks, then public peer originated routes. > Local prefs are just that LOCAL. They will not matter to other networks, they merely show the routes I prefer in and out of my network. This should have no impact on AS path hop counts which is the primary method of selecting BGP routes. > I'm not sure your annoyance with Qwest has any basis in their lack of > performance, as far as IP routing. BGP decision rules and other networks' > routing policies will govern which paths are used for your routes. Here is > an example... > > - Network X peers with UUNet in 8 locations. Network X also peers with > Qwest, lets say in 6 locations. For whatever reason, network X chooses > UUNet's routes to you over, Qwest's. This could be due to local routing > policy, dictating that 701 routes get a higher local pref. Or AS path > lengths could be the same, and the decision could be falling to something > like router ID. Whatever. What I would wonder here is : If network X prefers UUnet over Quest then maybe UUnet offers better performance than Quest. I think that most networks will not set a local pref unless there is a reason to override the default BGP behavior which is to use AS path length. If service providers are avoiding Quest there is probably a good reason for it. I don't think many people would try to give UUnet more preference that they already get by default, more likely networks lower the UUnet pref in order to balance their traffic. > > - In general, all the UUNet peering will get treated the same by > Network X's > routing policy. This won't always be the case, but let's say that none of > the peering links are congested, etc. So, a certain number of paths are > carried throughout Network X via iBGP. If UUNet's routes "won" at > all those > peering points, you will not see any paths through Qwest on a > single carrier > route server like Nitrous. Not true. Nitrous shows all routes it knows about whether they are preferred or not. > > - Route-views, and the like are different animals. They get ebgp multihop > views from many providers, so you will tend to see paths from > many different > vantage points, and are more likely to see paths from both your upstreams. > > ISPs get a heavy volume of calls every day. While Qwest may not have the > greatest customer service, it's not like you were actually down or had a > qwest originated routing issue. If that were the case, my > sympathy would be > greater. How would Quest have known if he actually had a problem since they never really talked to him ? What if he had a real routing problem ? > > - Daniel Golding > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Andy Dills > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Qwest Support > > > > > Wow, Qwest support is indeed terrible. > > Turned up the DS3 today...the connectivity seems fine. I decided to check > a couple of routeservers (nitrous); all had my much-prepended UUnet > announcement, but NONE had my Qwest announcement. Not a huge deal, but > curious to me. Is Qwest just not at the public peering points? When I > checked route-views.oregan-ix.net, I felt better, but yet annoyed. Even > with the prepends, most networks were announcing UUnet's path. > > So I decided to call them and ask...man what a mistake. The guy is like, > "Ok, hold on, let me get somebody from our IP noc." 10 minutes goes by, > and he comes back with "Couldn't get anybody in the IP noc, let me try to > get somebody in your install group" (being that I turned up the DS3 > today). Comes back another 10 minutes later with "Well, I left a message > for them, but there isn't much I can do. Nobody seems to be answering > their phone. If somebody doesn't call you back within 30 minutes, here's > a number to call..." > > So what if my routes were actually hosed? I'd just be screwed because they > can't get anybody at the IP noc? > > I wait. Nobody calls back within 30 minutes. I call the number he gave me. > Busy. You gotta be kidding me. > > So I call the main number again, talk to somebody different. She has me > hold, and then brings some guy on the line "who can help me". I start to > talk about route servers, and he's immediately like "Woah, this is a BGP > problem...I can't help you. Let me try to get somebody from the IP noc." > > So, I wait on hold for about 15 minutes, only to be given dial tone. > > Please tell me it isn't always THIS bad? > > Andy > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Andy Dills 301-682-9972 > Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access >
|