North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: mSQL Attack/Peering/OBGP/Optical exchange
- From: David Diaz
- Date: Tue Feb 04 15:56:08 2003
Well the feedback onlist and extensive offlist was great. The
respondents seem to feel that because of the rapid onset of the
attack, an dynamically allocated optical exchange might have
exacerbated the problem. But this is also the benefits, it allows
flexible bandwidth with a nonblocking backplane. So backbones with a
critical event such as a webcast have the capacity they need when
they need it. A common shared backplane architecture might provide a
nature bottleneck. One can also see this as a possible growth problem
the rest of the time.
Respondents strayed away from the specific subject of the dynamics of
the Optical exchange under an mSQL type attack and went into the pros
and cons. The number one topic: Billing
Billing was also the biggest challenge in implementation of the
technology. Once the ability was there, and the real world tests
showed this technology was actually functional. No one was exactly
sure of the business algorithm to charge by. Most commentators were
concerned about losing billing control. That a peer (possibly under
attack) may actually cause fees to be assessed to your own backbone.
It must be understood that your network must give approval for this
to happen. And if you have CNM (customer network management) enabled
and even running on a screen in your noc, u are aware immediately
when this happens. Without that, you have your specific peer locked
down to whatever size pipe you have chosen.
On the billing, it might be flat rate with the ability to "burst" to
a higher sized capacity. Perhaps this is a flat rate charge, or
would allow you to burst a certain amount of hours etc. No one has
gotten a clear picture. The simplest answer is probably to do, as
was mentioned, a similar scheme as in IP. Bill to the 95th
percentile. It seems fair. Use a multiplier of DS0s per hour x $
and go with that. You might even lock it down so that at a certain $
figure, no more bursting is allowed. I do not like that kind of
billing to network control, but it would seem that CFOs would demand
some kind of ceiling limit.
As far as oscillation between protection scheme in different layers.
This has been a problem with things like an IP over ATM network. It
should not be a problem and there has been a lot of testing. It is
true the possibility for thrashing is there but probably not at sub
50ms layers. We have that now over sonet private peering circuits.
But even in a metro wide optical exchange scheme, the two farthest
points on the mesh being ~100 miles, reroute time was 16ms. Those
are the real world tests when we were testing the network as we were
There were some discussions of rule sets. No conclusions. filters
should probably be left to the backbones with very little control at
the optical layer (IX). The only rule sets might be to service
levels or billing.
At 9:11 +0100 2/4/03, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Actually, I think that was the point of the dynamic provisioning
ability. The UNI 1.0 protocol or the previous ODSI, were to allow
the routers to provision their own capacity. The tests in the real
world done actually worked although I still believe they are under
Well the problem with optical bandwidth on demand is that you will
have to pay for the network even when it isn't being used. Basically
you have three billing principles, pay per usage, pay for the
service, a mix of the two. With all the models you still need to
distribute the cost over bandwidth and in worst case this will end
up being higher per transfered data.
The point was to provision or reprovision capacity as needed.
Without getting into the arguments of whether this is a good idea,
the point was to "pay" for what you used when you used it. The
biggest technical factor was "how the heck do you bill it."
If a customer goes from their normal OC3 ---> OC12 for 4hrs three
times in a month... what do you bill them for? Do you take it down
to the DS0/min level and just multiple or do you do a flat rate or
a per upgrade???
The point was you could bump up on the fly as needed, capacity
willing, then down. The obvious factor is having enough spare
capacity in the bucket. This should not be an issue within the 4
walls of a colo. If it's a beyond the 4 walls play then there
should be spare capacity available that normally serves as
redundancy in the mesh.
The other interesting factor is that now you have sort of aTDMA
arrangement going on( very loose analogy here). In that your day
can theoretically be divided into 3 time zones.
In the zone:
8am - 4pm ----- Business users, Financial backbones etc
4pm -12am ----- Home users, DSL, Cable, Peer to Peer
12am - 8am ---- Remote backup services, forgein users etc
Some of the same capacity can be reused based on peer needs.
This sort of addressed the "how do i design my backbone" argument.
Where engineers ahve to decide whether to built for peak load and
provide max QoS but also the highest cost backbone; or whether to
built for avg sustained utilization. This way you can
theoretically get the best of both worlds. As long as the billing
goes along with that.
You are right this is a future play. But though it was
interesting from the perspective of what if all this technology was
enabled today, what affect would the mSQL worm have had. Would
some of these technologies have exacerbated the problems we saw.
Trying to get better feedback on the future issues, so far some of
the offline comments and perspectives have been helpful and
inciteful as well as yours...
- kurtis -
www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons