Transit

Yesterday there was an article in the Indian paper Financial Express with the title “OTTs may have to pay access charge to telcos”.

Quoting a few points from the article:

• Social media intermediaries like WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter, and over-the-top (OTT) players like Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+Hotstar may have to pay a carriage charge to telecom service providers
• Data, particularly video, comprises 70% of the overall traffic flow on telecom networks, and this would grow further with the rollout of 5G services
• Upon reference from the DoT, Trai is currently studying various possible models under which OTTs can be brought within the purview of some form of regulation
• According to sources, an interconnect regime is a must between OTTs and telcos because as 5G services grow, there would be immense data/ video load on networks, which may lead to them getting clogged or even crashing at times.

This concept of “OTTs must pay” is not new. This has been argued a few times in past. Exactly ten years ago in 2012 I wrote a blog post about Bharti Airtel expecting Google/YouTube to pay. At that time they could not convince OTTs to pay. Why is this renewed interest now? Well, that has to do with the first SK Telecom (South Kore telecom) Vs Netflix court case in South Korea where SK Telecom claimed that a large part of bandwidth utilization was because of Netflix and hence they should pay a “fair share” of their traffic which they lost. Soon around this multiple of large telecom monopolies in Europe started this discussion in their respective geography. Four of the top EU players - Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Vodafone and Telefonica are of opinion that OTTs should share the burden (news here). And hence Indian telcos possibly looking to renew this debate.

So it seems like apart from voice interconnect issues, Jio is also facing routing issues on the backbone. I ran a trace to one of IP’s on Jio network allocated to end customer - 169.149.212.122. I ran trace from all Indian RIPE Atlas probes measurement here. There seem quite a few RIPE Atlas probes which are giving latency on 150ms + range. Seems like they are downstream or downstream of downstream of Tata Comm’s AS4755 and routing is happening via Singapore!    

Sometimes we see interesting IP’s in traceroute & they confuse lot of people.

I have seen this topic in discussion twice on NANOG and once on Linux Delhi user group. 

OK - let’s pick an example: 

anurag:~ anurag$ traceroute 71.89.140.11
traceroute to 71.89.140.11 (71.89.140.11), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 router (10.10.0.1) 1.176 ms 0.993 ms 0.941 ms
2 117.220.160.1 (117.220.160.1) 20.626 ms 29.101 ms 19.216 ms
3 218.248.169.122 (218.248.169.122) 23.983 ms 43.850 ms 45.057 ms
4 115.114.89.21.static-mumbai.vsnl.net.in (115.114.89.21) 118.094 ms 81.447 ms 66.838 ms
5 172.31.16.193 (172.31.16.193) 115.979 ms 90.947 ms 90.491 ms
6 ix-4-2.tcore1.cxr-chennai.as6453.net (180.87.36.9) 95.778 ms 98.601 ms 98.920 ms
7 if-5-2.tcore1.svw-singapore.as6453.net (180.87.12.53) 321.174 ms
if-3-3.tcore2.cxr-chennai.as6453.net (180.87.36.6) 331.386 ms 326.671 ms
8 if-6-2.tcore2.svw-singapore.as6453.net (180.87.37.14) 317.442 ms
if-2-2.tcore2.svw-singapore.as6453.net (180.87.12.2) 334.647 ms 339.289 ms
9 if-7-2.tcore2.lvw-losangeles.as6453.net (180.87.15.26) 318.003 ms 328.334 ms 309.234 ms
10 if-2-2.tcore1.lvw-losangeles.as6453.net (66.110.59.1) 306.500 ms 326.194 ms 341.537 ms
11 66.110.59.66 (66.110.59.66) 315.431 ms 330.417 ms 308.372 ms
12 dls-bb1-link.telia.net (213.155.136.40) 354.768 ms 344.360 ms 357.050 ms
13 chi-bb1-link.telia.net (80.91.248.208) 352.479 ms 358.751 ms 359.987 ms
14 cco-ic-156108-chi-bb1.c.telia.net (213.248.89.46) 367.467 ms 370.482 ms 377.280 ms
15 bbr01aldlmi-bue-4.aldl.mi.charter.com (96.34.0.98) 387.269 ms 385.362 ms 365.694 ms
16 crr02aldlmi-bue-2.aldl.mi.charter.com (96.34.2.11) 375.275 ms 375.356 ms 371.621 ms
17 dtr02grhvmi-tge-0-1-0-0.grhv.mi.charter.com (96.34.34.83) 383.539 ms 371.817 ms 383.804 ms
18 dtr02whthmi-tge-0-1-0-0.whth.mi.charter.com (96.34.34.85) 384.400 ms 391.197 ms 393.340 ms
19 dtr02ldngmi-tge-0-1-0-0.ldng.mi.charter.com (96.34.34.87) 371.192 ms 375.679 ms 378.457 ms
20 acr01mnplmi-tge-0-0-0-3.mnpl.mi.charter.com (96.34.40.75) 364.824 ms 385.534 ms 374.401 ms
21 * *^C
anurag:~ anurag$

Let’s try pinging IP on 14th hop (which is with a major backbone Telia) - 213.248.89.46

And college started after pretty good holi holidays. Again having bit painful time due to hot weather and this is just start of summers. Well all I can hope is that there won’t be voltage issues in village again (like last time). And just to make sure on that part - I have put 2 RTI’s asking Power department about their preparation details. :)

Anyways coming on blog post topic for the day - the effect of “next-hop-self” at an IXP when there are peers as well as transit customers of a network. Just to be clear in start - this post will stick to technical side of it and without going into IXP policy side of it.

Fest time at college - Good since I get lot of free time to spend around looking at routing tables. It’s always interesting since last week was full of some major submarine cable cuts and has huge impact on Indian networks.

Anyways, an interesting issue to post today about Global IPv6 routing . There are “dark spots” in global IPv6 routing because of peering dispute between multiple tier 1 ISPs involving Hurricane Electric (AS6939) & Cogent Communications (AS174).  What’s happening here is that both tier 1 providers failed to reach on agreement to keep peering up in case of IPv6. This has resulted in parts of global IPv6 internet where packets from one network (and it’s downstream) can’t reach other network or their downsteam singled hommed networks.