Chinese bgp metering story
joelja at bogus.com
Sat Dec 19 12:06:27 CST 2009
Paolo Lucente wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:09:32PM -0600, James Hess wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin <jonny at pch.net> wrote:
>>> modified if need be - to achieve this. ?Mixing billing with the reachability
>>> information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea.
>> Indeed not.. but it might offer one advantage, if it was mandatory
>> for any such tarrif/cost to be advertised there to be valid, and in
>> the form of an ancillary BGP route attribute, rather than buried in
>> some 500,000 page treaty that forces all ISPs to decipher it and
>> try to figure out what their liabilities are.
>> Mainly because it makes any tarrif very visible, and easily understood.
>> and offers an easy ability to automatically make decisions like
>> discard reachability information that has any billing labels or
>> "strings" attached to it, or has a cost greater than $X per million
>> packets listed for 'source'... and easily allows an ISP to replace
>> the next hop with null when a tarrif option has been listed, or use
>> only a route not subject to tarrif.
> I concur. Such visibility is efficient and drives simplification and
> automation from a data mining perspective, when analyzing accounting
> In such context, some care is required. Reachability information is
> destination based. Mixing accounting (ie. NetFlow) and reachability
> (ie. BGP) information is of good value for traffic delivered out of
> a routing domain but not for traffic received, ie. reverse reachability
> lookups can be a way although they are not truly deterministic due to
> routing asymmetries;
deliberate tunning for purposes of TE, use of default. will all
contribute to ingress path not resembling egress...
> a mix of ingress measurements, lookup maps and
> an export protocol supporting L2 information (ie. for same interface,
> multiple peers scenarios) give way a better chance to resolve which
> neighboring party is pulling which traffic into the observed domain.
More information about the NANOG