NTAC Peering Working Group

["David Crowe, Jr." <>]

hi chris,

[ note: added on the ntacpeering mailing list since its of interest to 
the non-intersecting set between ntac and ntacpeering. ]

we (I2 R&E customers and connectors) currently have very crude hammers 
with which to influence a provider's IP(v4|v6) path selection toward us: 
AS_PATH prepends and no announcement.

since Net+ is a business relationship with (presumably) some contract 
and technical reciprocity happening can we influence them to take more 
consistently applied, fine-grained, community-based indicators about 
whether to use Net+ paths or not?

if we can reach through I2 R&E to touch the provider on the other end in 
a discrete and deterministic manner to influence path selection that 
would be awesome and we should start quickly on a discussion of what 
we'd like to see.

finally, since bill didn't bring it up: will this be IPv6 enabled?  or 
maybe IPv6 only and see if microsoft can bring the killer v6 app?

thanks,

David



On 05/23/2013 07:10 AM, Chris Robb wrote:
> All:
>
> For those that didn't make the NTAC peering call on Tuesday, I wanted to
> point out the similar conversation that occurred there on the topic of
> Net+ delivery options. Internet2 is working on a review strategy to look
> at some of the alternatives that have been floated and is prepping some
> material for review. I'm not sure if the mechanics of that process have
> been worked out yet, but will share them as I learn more.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On May 23, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Michael H Lambert 
> <
> <mailto:>>
>  wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > On 23 May 2013, at 09:43, David Pokorney wrote:
> >
> > > On the Net+ call I attended earlier this week I suggested that he
> > > formally charge NTAC and AOAC with describing how their high level
> > > connection strategy for Net+ services are to be implemented.  We
> > > expect that no single method will appeal to all connectors.   There
> > > are several possibilities for Net+ being handed off to the connector.
> > >   I assume TR-CPS, RE and for some services AL2S will be part of the
> > > mix.
> >
> > I think you make good points here.  I agree that some routing policy
> > work is definitely in order.  The inference I have drawn (and I think
> > you have, too) is that all traffic between Net+ providers and
> > Internet2 participants will, by default, be done over the R&E IP
> > network, whether or not the participant is using the service via Net+
> > or by some separate agreement.  Might it make sense to consider a
> > policy on the R&E network in which participant routes are announced to
> > Net+ service providers only if that participant is a subscriber to the
> > service via Net+?  And the converse should also hold, even though that
> > might place more of a burden on connectors for enforcement.
> >
> > My two cents,
> >
> > Michael
>
> --
> Chris Robb, Internet2 Director of Operations and Engineering
> O: 812.855.8604  C: 812.345.3188
> ****************
> Visit our website: www.internet2.edu <http://www.internet2.edu>
> Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/internet2
> <http://www.twitter.com/internet2>
> Become a Fan on Facebook: www.internet2.edu/facebook
> <http://www.internet2.edu/facebook>