Contact us
March 20th, 2019

Russian Internet Segment Architecture

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


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.


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.


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

LOGIN
×
Contact us
×
Type:
Email:
Subject:
Message:

Thank you for feedback!

We will contact you by provided email address.