-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
draft-hilliard-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-00.txt
executable file
·672 lines (467 loc) · 27.5 KB
/
draft-hilliard-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-00.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
GROW Working Group N. Hilliard
Internet-Draft INEX
Intended status: Informational E. Jasinska
Expires: April 26, 2012 Limelight Networks
R. Raszuk
NTT MCL Inc.
N. Bakker
AMS-IX B.V.
October 24, 2011
Internet Exchange Route Server Operations
draft-hilliard-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-00
Abstract
The growing popularity of Internet exchange points (IXPs) brings a
new set of requirements to interconnect participating networks.
While bilateral exterior BGP sessions between exchange participants
were previously the most common means of exchanging reachability
information, the overhead associated with dense interconnection has
caused substantial operational scaling problems for Internet exchange
point participants.
Multilateral interconnection can dramatically reduce the
administrative and operational overhead of IXP participation and is
now used by many IXP participants as a means of exchanging routing
information.
This document outlines operational considerations for multilateral
interconnections at IXPs.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2012.
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Bilateral Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Multilateral Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Operational Considerations for Route Server Installations . . 6
4.1. Path Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Route Server Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Tackling Scaling Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1.1. View Merging and Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1.2. Destination Splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1.3. NEXT_HOP Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. NLRI Leakage Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Route Server Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. AS_PATH Consistency Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Export Routing Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6.1. BGP Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6.2. Internet Routing Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6.3. Client-accessible Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
1. Introduction
Internet exchange points (IXPs) provide IP data interconnection
facilities for their participants, typically using shared Layer-2
networking media such as Ethernet. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
[RFC4271], an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol, is commonly
used to facilitate exchange of network reachability information over
such media.
In the case of bilateral interconnection between two exchange
participant routers, each router must be configured with a BGP
session to the other. At IXPs with many participants who wish to
implement dense interconnection, this requirement can lead both to
large router configurations and high administrative overhead. Given
the growth in the number of participants at many IXPs, it has become
operationally troublesome to implement densely meshed
interconnections at these facilities.
Multilateral interconnection is a method of interconnecting BGP
speaking routers using a third party brokering system, commonly
referred to as a route server and typically managed by the IXP
operator. Each of the multilateral interconnection participants
(usually referred to as route server clients) announces network
reachability information to the route server using exterior BGP, and
the route server in turn forwards this information to each other
route server client connected to it, according to its configuration.
Although a route server uses BGP to exchange reachability information
with each of its clients, it does not forward traffic itself and is
therefore not a router.
A route server can be viewed as similar in function to an [RFC4456]
route reflector, except that it operates using EBGP instead of iBGP.
Certain adaptions to the BGP protocol [RFC4271] are required to
enable an EBGP router to operate as a route server; these are
outlined in [I-D.jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server].
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
2. Bilateral Interconnection
Bilateral interconnection is a method of interconnecting routers
using individual BGP sessions between each participant router on an
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
IXP, in order to exchange reachability information. While
interconnection policies vary from participant to participant, most
IXPs have significant numbers of participants who see value in
interconnecting with as many other exchange participants as possible.
In order for an IXP participant to implement a dense interconnection
policy, it is necessary for the participant to liaise with each of
their intended interconnection partners. If this partner agrees to
interconnect, then both participants' routers must be configured with
a BGP session to exchange network reachability information. If each
exchange participant interconnects with each other participant, a
full mesh of BGP sessions is needed, as shown in Figure 1.
___ ___
/ \ / \
..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..
: \___/____\___/ :
: | \ / | :
: | \ / | :
: IXP | \/ | :
: | /\ | :
: | / \ | :
: _|_/____\_|_ :
: / \ / \ :
..| AS3 |..| AS4 |..
\___/ \___/
Figure 1: Full-Mesh Interconnection at an IXP
Figure 1 depicts an IXP platform with four connected routers,
administered by four separate exchange participants, each of them
with a locally unique autonomous system number: AS1, AS2, AS3 and
AS4. Each of these four participants wishes to exchange traffic with
all other participants; this is accomplished by configuring a full
mesh of BGP sessions on each router connected to the exchange,
resulting in 6 BGP sessions across the IXP fabric.
The number of BGP sessions at an exchange has an upper bound of
n*(n-1)/2, where n is the number of routers at the exchange. As many
exchanges have relatively large numbers of participating networks,
the quadratic scaling requirements of dense interconnection tend to
cause high operational and administrative overhead. Consequently,
new participants to an IXP require significant initial resourcing in
order to gain value from their IXP connection, while existing
exchange participants need to commit ongoing resources in order to
benefit from interconnecting with these new participants.
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
3. Multilateral Interconnection
Multilateral interconnection is implemented using a route server
configured to use BGP to distribute network layer reachability
information (NLRI) among all client routers. The route server
preserves the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute from all received NLRI UPDATE
messages, and passes these messages with unchanged NEXT_HOP to its
route server clients, according to its configured routing policy, as
described in [I-D.jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server]. Using this method
of exchanging NLRI messages, an IXP participant router can receive an
aggregated list of prefixes from all other route server clients using
a single BGP session to the route server instead of depending on BGP
sessions with each other router at the exchange. This reduces the
overall number of BGP sessions at an Internet exchange from n*(n-1)/2
to n, where n is the number of routers at the exchange.
In practical terms, this allows dense interconnection between IXP
participants with low administrative overhead and significantly
simpler and smaller router configurations. In particular, new IXP
participants benefit from immediate and extensive interconnection,
while existing route server participants receive reachability
information from these new participants without necessarily having to
modify their configurations.
___ ___
/ \ / \
..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..
: \___/ \___/ :
: \ / :
: \ / :
: \__/ :
: IXP / \ :
: | RS | :
: \____/ :
: / \ :
: / \ :
: __/ \__ :
: / \ / \ :
..| AS3 |..| AS4 |..
\___/ \___/
Figure 2: IXP-based Interconnection with Route Server
As illustrated in Figure 2, each router on the IXP fabric requires
only a single BGP session to the route server, from which it can
receive reachability information for all other routers on the IXP
which also connect to the route server.
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
4. Operational Considerations for Route Server Installations
4.1. Path Hiding
"Path hiding" is a term used in [I-D.jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server] to
describe the process whereby a route server may mask individual paths
by applying conflicting routing policies to its Loc-RIB. When this
happens, route server clients receive incomplete information from the
route server about network reachability.
There are several approaches which may be used to mitigate against
the effect of path hiding; these are described in
[I-D.jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server]. However, the only method which
does not require explicit support from the route server client is for
the route server itself to maintain a individual Loc-RIB for each
client.
4.2. Route Server Scaling
While deployment of multiple Loc-RIBs on the route server presents a
simple way to avoid the path hiding problem noted in Section 4.1,
this approach requires significantly more computing resources on the
route server than where a single Loc-RIB is deployed for all clients.
As the [RFC4271] Decision Process must be applied to all Loc-RIBs
deployed on the route server, both CPU and memory requirements on the
host computer scale approximately according to O(P * N), where P is
the total number of unique paths received by the route server and N
is the number of route server clients which require a unique Loc-RIB.
As this is a super-linear scaling relationship, large route servers
may derive benefit from deploying per-client Loc-RIBs only where they
are required.
Regardless of any Loc-RIB optimization implemented, the route
server's control plane bandwidth requirements will scale according to
O(P * N), where P is the total number of unique paths received by the
route server and N is the total number of route server clients. In
the case where P_avg (the arithmetic mean number of unique paths
received per route server client) remains roughly constant even as
the number of connected clients increases, this relationship can be
rewritten as O((P_avg * N) * N) or O(N^2). This quadratic upper
bound on the network traffic requirements indicates that the route
server model will not scale to arbitrarily large sizes.
4.2.1. Tackling Scaling Issues
The network traffic scaling issue presents significant difficulties
with no clear solution - ultimately, each client must receive a
UPDATE for each unique prefix received by the route server. However,
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
there are several potential methods for dealing with the CPU and
memory resource requirements of route servers.
4.2.1.1. View Merging and Decomposition
View merging and decomposition, outlined in [RS-ARCH], describes a
method of optimising memory and CPU requirements where multiple route
server clients are subject to exactly the same routing policies. In
this situation, the multiple Loc-RIB views required by each client
are merged into a single view.
There are several variations of this approach. If the route server
operator has prior knowledge of interconnection relationships between
route server clients, then the operator may configure separate Loc-
RIBs only for route server clients with unique export peering
policies. As this approach requires prior knowledge of
interconnection relationships, the route server operator must depend
on each client sharing their interconnection policies, either in a
internal provisioning database controlled by the operator, or else in
an external data store such as an Internet Routing Registry Database.
Conversely, the route server implementation itself may implement view
decomposition by creating virtual Loc-RIBs based on a single in-
memory master Loc-RIB, with delta differences for each prefix subject
to different routing policies. This allows a more granular and
flexible approach to the problem of Loc-RIB scaling, at the expense
of requiring a more complex in-memory Loc-RIB structure.
Whatever method of view merging and decomposition is chosen on a
route server, pathological edge cases can be created whereby they
will scale no better than fully non-optimised per-client Loc-RIBs.
However, as most route server clients connect to a route server for
the purposes of reducing overhead, rather than implementing complex
per-client routing policies, edge cases tend not to arise in
practice.
4.2.1.2. Destination Splitting
Destination splitting, also described in [RS-ARCH], describes a
method for route server clients to connect to multiple route servers
and to send non-overlapping sets of prefixes to each route server.
As each route server computes the best path for its own set of
prefixes, the quadratic scaling requirement operates on multiple
smaller sets of prefixes. This reduces the overall computational and
memory requirements for managing multiple Loc-RIBs and performing the
best-path calculation on each. In order for this method to perform
well, destination splitting would require significant co-ordination
between the route server operator and each route server client. In
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
practice, such levels of co-ordination are unlikely to work
successfully, thereby diminishing the value of this approach.
4.2.1.3. NEXT_HOP Resolution
As route servers are usually deployed at IXPs which use flat layer 2
networks, recursive resolution of the NEXT_HOP attribute is generally
not required, and can be replaced by a simple check to ensure that
the NEXT_HOP value for each prefix is a network address on the IXP
LAN's IP address range.
4.3. NLRI Leakage Mitigation
NLRI leakage occurs when a BGP client unintentionally distributes
NLRI UPDATE messages to one or more neighboring BGP routers. NLRI
leakage of this form to a route server can cause connectivity
problems at an IXP if each route server client is configured to
accept all prefix UPDATE messages from the route server. It is
therefore RECOMMENDED when deploying route servers that, due to the
potential for collateral damage caused by NLRI leakage, route server
operators deploy NLRI leakage mitigation measures in order to prevent
unintentional prefix announcements or else limit the scale of any
such leak. Although not foolproof, per-client inbound prefix limits
can restrict the damage caused by prefix leakage in many cases. Per-
client inbound prefix filtering on the route server is a more
deterministic and usually more reliable means of preventing prefix
leakage, but requires more administrative resources to maintain
properly.
If a route server operator implements per-client inbound prefix
filtering, then it is RECOMMENDED that the operator also builds in
mechanisms to automatically compare the Adj-RIB-In received from each
client with the inbound prefix lists configured for those clients.
Naturally, it is the responsibility of the route server client to
ensure that their stated prefix list is compatible with what they
announce to an IXP route server. However, many network operators do
not carefully manage their published routing policies and it is not
uncommon to see significant variation between the two sets of
prefixes. Route server operator visibility into this discrepancy can
provide significant advantages to both operator and client.
4.4. Route Server Redundancy
As the purpose of an IXP route server implementation is to provide a
reliable reachability brokerage service, it is RECOMMENDED that
exchange operators who implement route server systems provision
multiple route servers on each shared Layer-2 domain. There is no
requirement to use the same BGP implementation or operating system
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
for each route server on the IXP fabric; however, it is RECOMMENDED
that where an operator provisions more than a single server on the
same shared Layer-2 domain, each route server implementation be
configured equivalently and in such a manner that the path
reachability information from each system is identical.
4.5. AS_PATH Consistency Check
[RFC4271] requires that every BGP speaker which advertises a route to
another external BGP speaker prepends its own AS number as the last
element of the AS_PATH sequence. Therefore the leftmost AS in an
AS_PATH attribute should be equal to the autonomous system number of
the BGP speaker which sent the UPDATE message.
As [I-D.jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server] suggests that route servers
should not modify the AS_PATH attribute, a consistency check on the
AS_PATH of an UPDATE received by a route server client would normally
fail. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that route server clients disable
the AS_PATH consistency check towards the route server.
4.6. Export Routing Policies
Policy filtering is commonly implemented on route servers to provide
prefix distribution control mechanisms for route server clients. A
route server "export" policy is a policy which affects prefixes sent
from the route server to a route server client. Several different
strategies are commonly used for implementing route server export
policies.
4.6.1. BGP Communities
Prefixes sent to the route server are tagged with specific [RFC1997]
or [RFC4360] BGP community attributes, based on pre-defined values
agreed between the operator and all client. Based on these community
tags, prefixes may be propagated to all other clients, a subset of
clients, or none. This mechanism allows route server clients to
instruct the route server to implement per-client export routing
policies.
As both standard and extended BGP communities values are restricted
to 6 octets, the route server operator should take care to ensure
that the predefined BGP community values mechanism used on their
route server is compatible with [RFC4893] 4-octet autonomous system
numbers.
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
4.6.2. Internet Routing Registry
Internet Routing Registry databases (IRRDBs) may be used by route
server operators to implement construct per-client routing policies.
[RFC2622] Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) provides an
comprehensive grammar for describing interconnection relationships,
and several toolsets exist which can be used to translate RPSL policy
description into route server configurations.
4.6.3. Client-accessible Databases
Should the route server operator not wish to use either BGP community
tags or the public IRRDBs for implementing client export policies,
they may implement their own routing policy database system for
managing their clients' requirements. A database of this form SHOULD
allow a route server client operator to update their routing policy
and provide a mechanism for allowing the client to specify whether
they wish to exchange all their prefixes with any other route server
client. Optionally, the implementation may allow a client to specify
unique routing policies for individual prefixes over which they have
routing policy control.
5. Security Considerations
On route server installations which do not employ path hiding
mitigation techniques, the path hiding problem outlined in section
Section 4.1 can be used in certain circumstances to proactively block
third party prefix announcements from other route server clients.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Chris Hall, Ryan Bickhart and Steven
Bakker for their valuable input.
In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the developers of
BIRD, OpenBGPD and Quagga, whose open source BGP implementations
include route server capabilities which are compliant with this
document.
8. References
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server]
Jasinska, E., Hilliard, N., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,
"Internet Exchange Route Server",
draft-jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server-03 (work in progress),
October 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC2622] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
"Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
June 1999.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.
[RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS
Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RS-ARCH] Govindan, R., Alaettinoglu, C., Varadhan, K., and D.
Estrin, "A Route Server Architecture for Inter-Domain
Routing", 1995,
<http://www.cs.usc.edu/research/95-603.ps.Z>.
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server Operations October 2011
Authors' Addresses
Nick Hilliard
INEX
4027 Kingswood Road
Dublin 24
IE
Email: nick@inex.ie
Elisa Jasinska
Limelight Networks
222 South Mill Avenue
Tempe, AZ 85281
US
Email: elisa@llnw.com
Robert Raszuk
NTT MCL Inc.
101 S Ellsworth Avenue Suite 350
San Mateo, CA 94401
US
Email: robert@raszuk.net
Niels Bakker
AMS-IX B.V.
Westeinde 12
Amsterdam, NH 1017 ZN
NL
Email: niels.bakker@ams-ix.net
Hilliard, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 12]