[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[safnog] Fwd: PCH peering survey 2016
- Subject: [safnog] Fwd: PCH peering survey 2016
- From: nishal at controlfreak.co.za (Nishal Goburdhan)
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:42:07 +0200
- References: <[email protected]>
if you?re a peering network, please could you take the time to
complete the survey below.
> From: Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
> Subject: PCH peering survey 2016
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:04:16 -0700
> Five years ago PCH conducted the first, and to date only,
> comprehensive survey characterizing Internet peering agreements.
> The document that resulted can be found here:
> That document was one of the principal inputs to an important document
> that the OECD publishes every five years, one that recommends
> communications regulatory policy to OECD member nations:
> The survey had several useful findings which hadn?t previously been
> established as fact?most notably the portion of peering
> relationships that are ?handshake? agreements, without written
> contract. These findings have improved the regulatory environments in
> which many of us operate our networks.
> At the time of the 2011 survey, we committed to repeating the survey
> every five years, so as to provide an ongoing indication of the
> direction peering trends take. It?s now five years later, so we?re
> repeating the survey.
> The survey is global in scope, and our goal is to reflect the
> diversity of peering agreements in the world; we?re interested in
> large ISPs and small ISPs, ISPs in Afghanistan and in Zimbabwe,
> bilateral agreements and multilateral, private and public. Our intent
> is to be as comprehensive as possible. In 2011, the responses we
> received represented 86% of all of the world?s ISPs and 96
> countries. We would like to be at least as inclusive this time.
> In 2011, we promised to collect the smallest set of data necessary to
> answer the questions, to perform the analysis immediately, and not to
> retain the data after the analysis was accomplished. In that way, we
> ensured that the privacy of respondents was fully protected. We did as
> we said, no data was leaked, and the whole community benefited from
> the trust that was extended to us. We ask for your trust again now as
> we make the same commitment to protect the privacy of all respondents,
> using the same process as last time. We are asking for no more data
> than is absolutely necessary. We will perform the analysis immediately
> upon receiving all of the data. We will delete the data once the
> analysis has been performed.
> The Survey:
> We would like to know the following five pieces of information
> relative to each Autonomous System you peer with:
> ? Your ASN
> ? Your peer?s ASN (peers only, not upstream transit providers or
> downstream customers)
> ? Whether a written and signed peering agreement exists (the
> alternative being a less formal arrangement, such as a "handshake
> ? Whether the terms are roughly symmetric (the alternative being
> that they describe an agreement with different terms for each of the
> two parties, such as one compensating the other, or one receiving more
> or fewer than full customer routes)
> ? Whether a jurisdiction of governing law is defined
> ? Whether IPv6 routes are being exchanged (this year, we?ll still
> assume that IPv4 are)
> The easiest way for us to receive the information is as a tab-text or
> CSV file or an Excel spreadsheet, consisting of rows with the
> following columns:
> Your ASN: Integer
> Peer ASN: Integer
> Written agreement: Boolean
> Symmetric: Boolean
> Governing Law: ISO 3166 two-digit country-code, or empty
> IPv6 Routes: Boolean
> For instance:
> 42 <tab> 715 <tab> false <tab> true <tab> us <tab> true <cr>
> 42 <tab> 3856 <tab> true <tab> true <tab> us <tab> true <cr>
> We are asking for the ASNs only so we can avoid double-counting a
> single pair of peers when we hear from both of them, and so that when
> we hear about a relationship in responses from both peers we can see
> how closely the two responses match, an important check on the quality
> of the survey. As soon as we've collated the data, we'll strip the
> ASNs to protect privacy, and only the final aggregate statistics will
> be published. We will never disclose any ASN or any information about
> any ASN. We already have more than 8,000 ASN-pair relationships
> documented, and we hope to receive as many more as possible. We'd like
> to finish collecting data by the end of September, about two weeks
> from now.
> If you?re peering with an MLPA route-server, you?re welcome to
> include just the route-server?s ASN, if that?s easiest, rather
> than trying to include each of the peer ASNs on the other side of the
> route-server. Either way is fine.
> If all of your sessions have the same characteristics, you can just
> tell us what those characteristics are once, your own ASN once, and
> give us a simple list of your peer ASNs.
> If your number of peers is small enough to be pasted or typed into an
> email, rather than attached as a file, and that?s simpler, just go
> ahead and do that.
> If you have written peering agreements that are covered by
> non-disclosure agreements, or if your organizational policy precludes
> disclosing your peers, but you?d still like to participate in the
> survey, please let us know, and we?ll work with whatever information
> you?re able to give us and try to ensure that your practices are
> statistically represented in our results.
> If you're able to help us, please email me the data in whatever form
> you can. If you need a non-disclosure, we're happy to sign one.
> Finally, if there are any other questions you?d like to see answered
> in the future, please let us know so that we can consider addressing
> them in the 2021 survey. The question about IPv6 routing in this
> year?s survey is there because quite a few of the 2011 respondents
> asked us to include it this time.
> Please respond by replying to this email, before the end of September.
> Thank you for considering participating. We very much appreciate it,
> and we look forward to returning the results to the community.
> -Bill Woodcock
> Executive Director
> Packet Clearing House