As our readers know, Qrator.Radar is tirelessly exploring global BGP connectivity as well as regional connectivity. Since "Internet" is short for "interconnected networks" - "interconnected networks", the best way to ensure high quality and speed of its work is the rich and diverse connectivity of individual networks, whose development is motivated primarily by competition.
The fault tolerance of an Internet connection in any given region or country is related to the number of alternative routes between autonomous systems - AS. However, as we have repeatedly mentioned in national resilience of WAN segments, some paths become more important than others (for example, paths to Tier-1 transit providers or ASs hosting authoritative DNS servers) - this means that the presence of as many alternative routes as possible in The bottom line is the only viable way to ensure the reliability of the system (in the sense of AS).
This time, we will take a closer look at the device of the Internet segment of the Russian Federation. There are reasons to keep an eye on this segment: according to the data provided by the RIPE registrar database, 6183 ASs out of 88664 registered globally belong to the Russian Federation, which is 6,87%.
This percentage puts Russia in second place in the world in this indicator, right after the United States (30,08% of registered AS) and before Brazil, which owns 6,34% of all autonomous systems. Effects arising from changes in Russian connectivity, , dependent on or adjacent to this connectivity and, finally, at the level of almost any Internet provider.
Review
Diagram 1. Distribution of autonomous systems between countries in IPv4 and IPv6, top 20 countries
In IPv4, ISPs from the Russian Federation announce 33933 out of 774859 globally visible network prefixes, which represents 4,38% and puts the Russian Internet segment in fifth place in this rating. These prefixes, announced exclusively from the RU segment, cover 4,3*10^7 unique IP addresses out of 2,9*10^9 announced globally β 1,51%, 11th place.
Diagram 2. Distribution of network prefixes between countries in IPv4, top 20 countries
Within IPv6, ISPs from the Russian Federation announce 1831 out of 65532 globally visible prefixes, which represents 2,79% and 7th place. These prefixes cover 1.3*10^32 unique IPv6 addresses out of 1,5*10^34 announced globally β 0,84% ββand 18th place.
Diagram 3. Distribution of network prefixes between countries in IPv6, top 20 countries
customized size
One of the many ways to evaluate the connectivity and reliability of the Internet in a particular country is to rank the autonomous systems belonging to a given region by the number of advertised prefixes. This technique, however, is vulnerable to route deaggregation, which is gradually balanced by filtering excessively deaggregated prefixes on ISP equipment, primarily due to the constant and inevitable growth of routing tables that occupy memory.
Top 20 IPv4
Top 20 IPv6
ASN
AS Name
Number of prefixes
ASN
AS Name
Number of prefixes
2279
56
1283
51
1197
30
930
26
521
20
44050
PIN AS
366
42385
RIPN
20
197695
AS-REGRU
315
51604
EKAT-AS
19
12772
ENFORTA AS
291
51819
YAR-AS
19
41704
OGS-AS
235
50543
SARATOV-AS
18
57129
EN-SERVERSGET-KRSK
225
52207
TULA-AS
18
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
216
206066
TELEDOM-AS
18
49505
SELECTEL
213
57026
CHEB-AS
18
12714
TI-AS
195
49037
MGL-AS
17
15774
TTK-RTL
193
41682
ERTH-TMN-AS
17
12418
QUANTUM
191
21191
ASN-SEVERTTK
16
50340
SELECTEL-MSK
188
41843
ERTH-OMSK-AS
15
28840
TATTELECOM AS
184
42682
ERTH-NNOV-AS
15
50113
SuperServersDatacenter
181
50498
LIPETSK AS
15
31163
MF-KAVKAZ-AS
176
50542
VORONEZH-AS
15
21127
ZSTTKAS
162
51645
IRKUTSK-AS
15
Table 1. AS size by number of advertised prefixes
We use the aggregate size of the advertised address space as a more robust metric for comparing the sizes of autonomous systems, which determines its potential and the extent to which it can scale. This metric is not always relevant in IPv6 due to the current RIPE NCC IPv6 address allocation policies and the redundancy built into the protocol.
Gradually, this situation will be balanced by the growth in the use of IPv6 in the Russian segment of the Internet and the development of practices for working with the IPv6 protocol.
Top 20 IPv4
Top 20 IPv6
ASN
AS Name
Number of IP addresses
ASN
AS Name
Number of IP addresses
8994816
2.76 * 10 ^ 30
2228864
2.06 * 10 ^ 30
1206272
1.43 * 10 ^ 30
1162752
1.35 * 10 ^ 30
872608
1.27 * 10 ^ 30
31200
NTK
566272
34241
NCT-AS
1.27 * 10 ^ 30
42610
NCNET AS
523264
202984
team-host
1.27 * 10 ^ 30
25513
ASN-MGTS-USPD
414464
12695
DINET-AS
9.51 * 10 ^ 29
39927
Elight AS
351744
206766
INETTECH1-AS
8.72 * 10 ^ 29
20485
TRANSTELECOM
350720
20485
TRANSTELECOM
7.92 * 10 ^ 29
8342
RTCOMM-AS
350464
12722
RECONN
7.92 * 10 ^ 29
28840
TATTELECOM AS
336896
47764
mailru-as
7.92 * 10 ^ 29
8369
INTERSVYAZ-AS
326912
44050
PIN AS
7.13 * 10 ^ 29
28812
JSCBIS-AS
319488
45027
INETTECH AS
7.13 * 10 ^ 29
12332
PRIMORYE-AS
303104
3267
RUNNET
7.13 * 10 ^ 29
20632
PETERSTAR AS
284416
34580
UNITLINE_MSK_NET1
7.13 * 10 ^ 29
8615
CNT-AS
278528
25341
LINIYA-AS
7.13 * 10 ^ 29
35807
SkyNet-SPB-AS
275968
60252
OST-LLC-AS
7.13 * 10 ^ 29
3267
RUNNET
272640
28884
MR-SIB-MTSAS
6.73 * 10 ^ 29
41733
ZTELECOM AS
266240
42244
ESERVER
6.44 * 10 ^ 29
Table 2. AS size by number of advertised IP addresses
Both metrics - the number of advertised prefixes and the aggregate size of the address space - are amenable to manipulation. Although we did not see such behavior from the mentioned AS during the study.
Connectivity
There are 3 main types of relationships between autonomous systems:
β’ Client: pays another AS for traffic transit;
β’ Peering partner: AS exchanging its own and client traffic for free;
β’ Provider: receives traffic transit fees from other ASs.
Usually, these types of relationships are the same for any two Internet providers, which is confirmed in the region of the Russian Federation we are considering. However, it sometimes happens that two ISPs have different types of relationships in different regions, such as exchanging for free in Europe but having a commercial relationship in Asia.
Top 20 IPv4
Top 20 IPv6
ASN
AS Name
Number of clients in the region
ASN
AS Name
Number of clients in the region
818
94
667
82
589
77
467
72
313
70
20764
RASCOM AS
223
9049
ERTH-TRANSIT-AS
58
9049
ERTH-TRANSIT-AS
220
8359
MTS
51
8732
COMCOR AS
170
29076
CITYTELECOM AS
40
2854
ROSPRINT-AS
152
31500
GLOBALNET AS
32
29076
CITYTELECOM AS
143
3267
RUNNET
26
29226
MASTERTEL AS
143
25478
IHOME AS
22
28917
Fiord-AS
96
28917
Fiord-AS
21
25159
SONICDUO-AS
94
199599
CIREX
17
3267
RUNNET
93
29226
MASTERTEL AS
13
31500
GLOBALNET AS
87
8732
COMCOR AS
12
13094
SFO-IX-AS
80
35000
PROMETEY
12
31261
GARS-AS
80
49063
DTLN
11
25478
IHOME AS
78
42861
FOTONTELECOM
10
12695
DINET-AS
76
56534
PIRIX-INET-AS
9
8641
NAUKANET AS
73
48858
Milecom-as
8
Table 3. AS connectivity by number of clients
The number of clients of a given AS reflects its role as a direct provider of Internet connectivity services to commercial customers.
Top 20 IPv4
Top 20 IPv6
ASN
AS Name
Number of peering partners in the region
ASN
AS Name
Number of peering partners in the region
638
266
579
201
498
189
497
177
474
176
41268
LANTA-AS
432
3267
RUNNET
86
15672
TZTELECOM
430
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
78
39442
UNICO AS
424
60764
TK Telecom
74
39087
PAKT-AS
422
12389
ROSTELECOM AS
52
199805
UGO AS
418
42861
FOTONTELECOM
32
200487
FASTVPS
417
8359
MTS
28
41691
SUMTEL-AS-RIPE
399
20764
RASCOM AS
26
13094
SFO-IX-AS
388
20485
TRANSTELECOM
17
60357
MEGAGROUP AS
368
28917
Fiord-AS
16
41617
SOLID-IFC
347
31500
GLOBALNET AS
14
51674
Mehanika-AS
345
60388
TRANSNEFT-TELECOM-AS
14
49675
SKBKONTUR-AS
343
42385
RIPN
13
35539
INFOLINK-T-AS
310
3216
SOVAM-AS
12
42861
FOTONTELECOM
303
49063
DTLN
12
25227
ASN-AVANTEL-MSK
301
44843
OBTEL-AS
11
Table 4. AS connectivity by number of peering partners
A large number of peering partners can significantly improve the connectivity of an entire region. Important, though not essential, Internet Exchanges (IX - Internet Exchange) - the largest ISPs usually do not participate in regional exchanges (with a few notable exceptions such as NIXI) due to the nature of their business.
For a content provider, the number of peering partners can indirectly serve as an indicator of the volume of generated traffic - the incentive to exchange large volumes of it for free is a motivation factor (sufficient for most local Internet providers) to see a worthy candidate for peering partners in a content provider. There are also reverse cases, when content providers do not support a policy of a significant number of regional connections, which makes this indicator not very accurate for assessing the size of content providers, that is, the amount of traffic they generate.
Top 20 IPv4
Top 20 IPv6
ASN
AS Name
Client cone size
ASN
AS Name
Client cone size
3083
335
2973
219
2587
205
2463
183
2318
166
8359
MTS
2293
3216
SOVAM-AS
143
20764
RASCOM AS
2251
8359
MTS
143
9049
ERTH-TRANSIT-AS
1407
3267
RUNNET
88
29076
CITYTELECOM AS
860
29076
CITYTELECOM AS
84
28917
Fiord-AS
683
28917
Fiord-AS
70
3267
RUNNET
664
9049
ERTH-TRANSIT-AS
65
25478
IHOME AS
616
31500
GLOBALNET AS
54
43727
KVANT-TELECOM
476
25478
IHOME AS
33
31500
GLOBALNET AS
459
199599
CIREX
24
57724
DDOS-GUARD
349
43727
KVANT-TELECOM
20
13094
SFO-IX-AS
294
39134
UNITEDNET
20
199599
CIREX
290
15835
MAP
15
29226
MASTERTEL AS
227
29226
MASTERTEL AS
14
201706
AS-SERVICEPIPE
208
35000
PROMETEY
14
8641
NAUKANET AS
169
49063
DTLN
13
Table 5. AS connectivity by client cone size
The client cone is the set of all ASs that are directly or indirectly dependent on the autonomous system in question. From an economic point of view, each AS within a customer cone is, directly or indirectly, a paying customer. At a higher level, the number of ASs within the customer cone, as well as the number of direct consumers, is a key indicator of connectivity.
Finally, we have prepared for you another table that considers connectivity to the RuNet core. By understanding the structure of the regional connectivity core, based on the number of direct clients and the size of the client cone for each autonomous system in the region, we can calculate how far they are from the largest transit Internet providers in the region. The lower the number, the higher the connectivity. "1" means that for all visible paths there is a direct connection to the regional core.
IPv4 top 20
IPv6 top 20
ASN
AS Name
Connectivity rating
ASN
AS Name
Connectivity rating
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.07
1.05
13238
Yandex
1.1
8470
MAcomnet
1.17
3216
SOVAM-AS
1.11
12389
ROSTELECOM AS
1.19
48061
GPM-TECH-AS
1.11
41722
MIRAN-AS
1.2
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
1.11
8359
MTS
1.22
8359
MTS
1.12
60879
SYSTEMPROJECTS-AS
1.25
41268
LANTA-AS
1.13
41268
LANTA-AS
1.25
9049
ERTH-TRANSIT-AS
1.16
44020
CLN-AS
1.25
20485
TRANSTELECOM
1.18
29226
MASTERTEL AS
1.25
29076
CITYTELECOM AS
1.18
44943
RAMNET AS
1.25
12389
ROSTELECOM AS
1.23
12714
TI-AS
1.25
57629
IVI-EN
1.25
47764
mailru-as
1.25
48297
DOORHAN
1.25
44267
IESV
1.25
42632
MNOGOBYTE-AS
1.25
203730
SVIAZINVESTREGION
1.25
44020
CLN-AS
1.25
3216
SOVAM-AS
1.25
12668
MIRALOGIC-AS
1.25
24739
SEVEREN-TELECOM
1.29
Table 6. AS connectivity by distance to the regional connectivity core
What can be done to improve the overall connectivity and, as a result, the stability, reliability and security of any country, the Russian Federation in particular? Here are just a few of the measures:
- Tax deductions and other benefits for local operators of traffic exchange points, as well as free access to them;
- Free or cheap easement of land for laying fiber optic communication lines;
- Conducting trainings and training sessions for technical staff in remote regions, including workshops and other formats for teaching BGP best practices. RIPE NCC organizes some of them, .
The data presented above is an excerpt from a study conducted by Qrator Labs on the world's second largest regional Internet segment of the Russian Federation (also known as "Runet") based on open data collected and processed within the project . The presentation of the full study is declared as a workshop (workshop) within in July. A request for similar data for segments of other countries and regions can be sent to the e-mail address .
Source: habr.com