NOMA: Static snapshot and nexts

A while back, I wrote a guest blog for APNIC on the topic of the first results from the NOMA pilot work with RIPE NCC’s Atlas framework.

I concluded: “Nevertheless, while these results are pretty preliminary, they do highlight the value of the in-network perspective on IPv4 and IPv6 performance, and motivate further study. For instance, it seems the performance of IPv6 is better when measuring to a “near” target. One hypothesis is that performance improvement is because transit networks are not as friendly to IPv6 traffic as access networks. Other hypotheses are also possible, and only testing will tell.”

In a world where IPv6 and IPv4 network connectivity and routing are very clearly not symmetric, that testing could be really valuable, if for no other reasons than to show progress with IPv6 deployment, salute the networks that have made the progress, and help identify issues remaining.

A network operator perspective on IPv6 performance | APNIC Blog

A network operator perspective on IPv6 performance | APNIC Blog

Guest Post: The Network Operator Measurement Activity (NOMA) platform explores the possibility of making use of data within constituent networks for Internet health metrics measurements.

Source: blog.apnic.net/2017/09/29/network-operator-perspective-ipv6-performance/

 

Mind Your MANRS!

The Internet Society has been working on Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security (MANRS) for a few years, and they recently funded some industry research to gain insights into network operators’ and enterprises’ requirements and plans around routing security.

MANRS

The report itself is definitely worth a read (see references below).  Particular results that I think are of interest for both MANRS and URSA are:

  • that enterprises are also concerned about address spoofing and route hijacking; and
  • the apparent disconnect between operators’ expectations of customers’ routing security interests and the enterprises expressed willingness to prefer network services that provide better security.

The first should be a really important driver for getting operators to step up and implement the best practices that are at the heart of MANRS.  Also, it should help focus attention and interest in URSA’s efforts to get agreement on rational next steps in selecting and deploying routing security technologies.

The second is a bit of a puzzle, but perhaps best interpreted as an opportunity for operators to understand that customers are interested and willing to pay to support the right thing being done.

The Internet Society overview of the report is here: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/resources/research/

The full report itself is available here: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/09/451_Advisory_BW_MANRS_InternetSociety_10375.pdf

 

Data! NOMA gets air (time) in Budapest

NOMA at RIPE 74

Today I had the opportunity to talk to the RIPE meeting crowd about my use of the RIPE NCC Atlas measurements infrastructure to simulate the NOMA v6 health metric measurement.  NOMA is based on operators instrumenting their networks.  The RIPE Atlas infrastructure, with its probes distributed throughout a variety of networks, is a good platform for illustrating what could be done, with live (if somewhat limited) data.

Continue reading

Routing security: work with what you’ve got!

It seemed like there would be little appetite for discussing next steps in routing infrastructure authentication and verification after the DDoS attack on Dyn (October 2016), when it became clear that large scale attacks are feasible without spoofing IP addresses, hijacking prefixes, or otherwise falsifying Internet infrastructure numbers and routing. Already a tough sell to get operators to consider incremental (let alone architectural) updates to do origin authentication and some manner of routing announcement verification, the Dyn attack provided a clear and present danger that would not be addressed by such updates, so why bother with them?

Continue reading

NOMA Measurements Template (Media)

This  is the persistent reference page for the NOMA Measurements Template document.  Please use this page’s URL to refer to the document:  http://www.techark.org/noma-measurements-template/

Current version of the document:    http://www.techark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/20161208-NOMA-Measurements-Template.pdf

Internet Measurements Landscape (2016): Systems, Approaches and a Comparative Framework (Media)

This  is the persistent reference page for the Internet Measurements Landscape (2016) paper.  Please use this page’s URL to refer to the paper (http://www.techark.org/internet-measurements-landscape-2016-systems-approaches-and-a-comparative-framework).

Current version of the document:  http://www.techark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/20161213-NOMA-SurveyPaper.pdf

2016 NOMA Vision Paper (Media)

This is the persistent reference page for the 2016 NOMA Vision Paper.  Please use this page’s URL to refer to the paper:  http://www.techark.org/2016-noma-vision-paper/

Current version of the document:  http://www.techark.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/20161209-NOMA-Vision-Paper-RefUpdate.pdf (Updated URL for reference to Internet Measurements Survey paper)

Older versions of the document:

 

When do you need a TechArk?

One of the questions that comes up regularly is:  what kind of projects are appropriate for TechArk?

So, here’s a handy little diagram, perhaps even a logo, to keep that in mind.

20161007-techark-compassrose-transparentHave you ever…

Continue reading

Necessary… but not sufficient: Are we on the right track for Internet security?

Last Wednesday,  in the hallways of the NANOG 68 meetings in Dallas, I started asking a question that goes to the heart of prioritizing work to improve Internet security; on Friday, with the DDoS attack on Dyn’s infrastructure, we got some searing insight into why it is quite possibly an urgent question.

Continue reading

Measurements of networks: what more could there be in the world?

The TechArk NOMA (Network Operator Measurement Activity) is focused on  developing operator-driven network health measurements through the definition and promotion of self-instrumentation and information sharing.)  This is all with a goal of ensuring a better, shared understanding of what “good” Internet looks like.

An important question is whether there is anything left to measure in operator networks?  At an invitational workshop in June of this year, the answer seemed to be “why, yes, there is”.

Various measurements are made of and across networks today, but they are often done without the specific involvement of the operators of those networks, and therefore have to make guesses or generalizations about them.  On the flipside, there’s a lot that goes into the customer’s experience of the Internet that can be adjusted and improved if network operators have a comprehensive instrumentation of their own networks.

The report from that workshop is now available here:  http://www.techark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/20160831-WorkshopReport-Final.pdf .  Have a read through to see more about the experiences of one network operator that has implemented such instrumentation and possible paths forward to achieve the NOMA goal.