20 March 2019

Russian Internet Segment Architecture

Qrator Labs corporate blogNetwork technologiesDevelopment of communication systems
As many of our readers know, Qrator.Radar is constantly researching global BGP connectivity, as well as regional. Since the Internet stands for “Interconnected Networks,” to ensure the best possible quality and speed the interconnectivity of individual networks should be rich and diverse, with their growth motivated on a sound competitive basis.

The fault-resistance of an internet connection in any given region or country is tied to the number of alternate routes between ASes. Though, as we stated before in our Internet Segments Reliability reports, some paths are obviously more critical compared to the others (for example, the paths to the Tier-1 transit ISPs or autonomous systems hosting authoritative DNS servers), which means that having as many reachable routes as possible is the only viable way to ensure adequate system scalability, stability and robustness.

This time, we are going to have a closer look at the Russian Federation internet segment. There are reasons to keep an eye on that segment: according to the numbers provided by the RIPE database, there are 6183 autonomous systems in Russia, out of 88664 registered worldwide, which stands for 6.87% of total.

This percentage puts Russia on a second place in the world, right after the USA (30.08% of registered ASes) and before Brazil, owning 6.34% of all autonomous systems. Effects of changes in the Russian connectivity could be observed across many other countries dependant on or adjacent to that connectivity, and ultimately by almost any ISP in the world.

The overview


image
Diagram 1. AS distribution among countries, top 20

In IPv4 ISPs from Russian Federation announce 33933 out of 774859 globally visible prefixes, which translates into 4.38% and puts Russian internet segment on the fifth place of such rating. Those, explicitly RU-announced prefixes cover 4.3*10^7 of unique IP-addresses out of 2.9*10^9 announced globally — 1.51%, 11th place.

image
Diagram 2. Network prefix number distribution among countries in IPv4, top 20

In IPv6 ISPs from Russian Federation announce 1831 out of 65532 globally visible prefixes, which is 2.79% and place 7. Those prefixes cover 1.3*10^32 of unique IPv6 addresses out of 1.5*10^34 globally announced — 0.84%, 18th place.

image
Diagram 3. Network prefix number distribution in IPv6 among countries, top 20

One of many ways to evaluate the country’s Internet connectivity and reliability is to rank the autonomous systems within the country by the number of prefixes announced. This method is vulnerable to route deaggregation, which is gradually balanced eventually by the excessive filtering of the de-aggregated prefixes in the ISP equipment due to the constant inevitable growth of route tables, which consumes memory.

The individual scale


 
IPv4 top 20
 
 
IPv6 top 20  
ASN
AS Name
Number of prefixes
ASN
AS Name
Number of prefixes
12389
ROSTELECOM-AS
2279
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
56
8402
CORBINA-AS
1283
59504
vpsville-AS
51
24955
UBN-AS
1197
39811
MTSNET-FAR-EAST-AS
30
3216
SOVAM-AS
930
57378
ROSTOV-AS
26
35807
SkyNet-SPB-AS
521
12389
ROSTELECOM-AS
20
44050
PIN-AS
366
42385
RIPN-RU
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
RU-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 the prefix count

We use the aggregated size of announced address space as a more reliable metric of comparable size for the autonomous system which reflects the autonomous systems potential and scalability limit. Such metric is not always relevant in IPv6 due to both RIPE NCC’s existing IPv6 address allocation policies and the redundancy in the protocol design. That is continuously balanced by the growth of IPv6 segment within the Russian internet segment and IPv6 BCP evolution.

 
IPv4 top 20
 
 
IPv6 top 20
 
ASN
AS Name
Number of IP-addresses
ASN
AS Name
Number of IP-addresses
12389
ROSTELECOM-AS
8994816
59504
vpsville-AS
2.76*10^30
8402
CORBINA-AS
2228864
49335
NCONNECT-AS
2.06*10^30
12714
TI-AS
1206272
8359
MTS
1.43*10^30
8359
MTS
1162752
50113
SuperServersDatacenter
1.35*10^30
3216
SOVAM-AS
872608
201211
DRUGOYTEL-AS
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 the aggregated IP count

Both metrics — the number of announced prefixes and the aggregated size of announced address space — could be manipulated easily. Though we haven’t yet seen such behavior among the ASes in the scope of this research.

The connectivity


There are 3 major types of relation between autonomous systems:
  • Client: paying another AS for traffic transit;
  • Peering partner: an AS exchanging (both own or clients’) traffic for free;
  • Provider: receiving payments for traffic transit from the other AS.

Usually, those types of relations are the same for all the peering relations between two ISPs, which proves itself right for the Russian Federation. However, it also happens sometimes that two ISPs have different relations in different regions, e.g. peer freely in Europe but have commercial relations in Asia.

 
IPv4 top 20
 
 
IPv6 top 20
 
ASN
AS Name
Amount of customers within a region
ASN
AS Name
Amount of customers within a region
12389
ROSTELECOM-AS
818
20485
TRANSTELECOM
94
3216
SOVAM-AS
667
12389
ROSTELECOM-AS
82
20485
TRANSTELECOM
589
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
77
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
467
20764
RASCOM-AS
72
8359
MTS
313
3216
SOVAM-AS
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 the customer amount

The number of clients for an AS showcases a role of an ISP as a direct upstream internet service provider for commercial customers.

 
IPv4 top 20
 
 
IPv6 top 20
 
ASN
AS Name
Number of peering partners in a region
ASN
AS Name
Number of peering partners in a region
13238
YANDEX
638
13238
YANDEX
266
43267
First_Line-SP_for_b2b_customers
579
9049
ERTH-TRANSIT-AS
201
9049
ERTH-TRANSIT-AS
498
60357
MEGAGROUP-AS
189
201588
MOSCONNECT-AS
497
41617
SOLID-IFC
177
44020
CLN-AS
474
41268
LANTA-AS
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-RU
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 the number of peering partners

A large number of peers could significantly improve the region’s overall connectivity. Internet Exchanges are important, nevertheless not necessary — biggest ISPs usually don’t participate in regional exchange points (with some notable exceptions, such as NIXI) due to the very nature of their business.

For a content provider, number of peers often indicates the volume of generated traffic — a stimulus of a free-of-charge exchange of heavy amounts of traffic is a motivation factor quite sufficient for most local ISPs to recognize a content provider as a good candidate for a peering connection. There are cases however when content providers don’t maintain a policy for excessive regional peering, which makes such an indicator not very precise in evaluating the size of content providers, i.e., the amount of traffic generated.

 
IPv4 top 20
 
 
IPv6 top 20
 
ASN
AS Name
Customer cone size
ASN
AS Name
Customer cone size
3216
SOVAM-AS
3083
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
335
12389
ROSTELECOM-AS
2973
20485
TRANSTELECOM
219
20485
TRANSTELECOM
2587
12389
ROSTELECOM-AS
205
8732
COMCOR-AS
2463
8732
COMCOR-AS
183
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
2318
20764
RASCOM-AS
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 the customer cone size

The customer cone is a set of all ASes that are directly or indirectly dependent on given autonomous systems. Economically, every AS in the customer cone is a paying client, either directly or indirectly. On a higher level, the number of ASes within a given customer cone, as well as the number of direct customers, is the crucial connectivity factor.

Finally, we have got one more table, representing connectivity to the core of the Internet. When we know the customer cone size for each AS in the region, we could calculate how far they are from the region’ biggest transit ISPs. The lower the number — the better connectivity is. “1” stands for all visible routes there are the direct connection with the regional core available.

 
IPv4 top 20
 
 
IPv6 top 20
 
ASN
AS Name
Connectivity rating
ASN
AS Name
Connectivity rating
8997
ASN-SPBNIT
1.0
21109
CONTACT-AS
1.0
47764
mailru-as
1.0
31133
MF-MGSM-AS
1.0
42448
ERA-AS
1.0
20485
TRANSTELECOM
1.0
13094
SFO-IX-AS
1.0
47541
VKONTAKTE-SPB-AS
1.0
47541
VKONTAKTE-SPB-AS
1.07
13238
YANDEX
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-RU
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 the distance to the largest regional transit ISPs

What efforts could be taken in order to improve the overall connectivity and in turn stability, reliability and security of any country and Russia in particular? Here are just a few:

  • Tax exemption and other benefits to local IX operators;
  • Free or cheap land servitude for fiber optic communication lines construction;
  • Trainings for technical staff in faraway regions, including workshops and tutorials on BGP best practices. RIPE NCC provides some of those for free, check the list.


Data presented in this article is an excerpt from the research conducted by Qrator Labs about the world’s second-largest regional Internet segment of Russia (colloquially recognized as “Runet”), based on open data collected and analyzed by the Radar project. The research in full is planned to be presented at the proposed workshop during the 10th Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum in July. Any feedback as well as requests for similar research for other countries and regions are welcome and could be sent to the e-mail: mail@qrator.net
Tags:internet segmentrussiarunetarchitecturebgpconnectivityreliability
Hubs: Qrator Labs corporate blog Network technologies Development of communication systems
+33
3.1k 6
Comments 1
Top of the last 24 hours