- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: QoS/CoS in the real world?
by Stephen J. Wilcox 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, John Evans wrote: > > I realise this is a US-centric list, however, a significant number of > providers in Europe have deployed Diffserv as a means of supporting (and > selling) differential SLAs. Of these, some have deployed Diffsev at the > edge and some both the edge and core. See Clarence Filsfils presentation at > NANOG 25 for a description of typical core deployments. > > > 2. Hype aside, to what extent do customers actually want this > > Surely end customers want a service with SLAs that will support their > applications, and at low cost? It then becomes a provider cost > consideration as to whether these SLA assurances can most competitively > satisfied with mechanisms such as Diffserv or without. I have to say that the majority of users barely understand how their outlook client works let alone the difference between applications. I'm starting to think theres no demand for these services other than that which the hype says is there. THis is in line with what people said about using qos behind the scenes but customers dont know.. kind of what I thought to begin with STeve > > I conclude either the people doing this are successful and keep > > their secret > > safe or the world is yet to sell largescale QoS across IP. > > or perhaps they are just not on this list. > > cheers > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > > Stephen J. Wilcox > > Sent: 14 July 2002 00:47 > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: QoS/CoS in the real world? > > > > > > > > Well, end of the week and the responses dried up pretty quickly, > > I think thats a > > response in itself to my question! > > > > Okay, heres a summary which was requested by a few people: > > > > Other people too are interested in my questions, they dont > > implement QoS in any > > saleable manner and wonder how it can be done and whats actually > > required. > > > > A number of people think QoS was interesting for a while but that > > its never > > either found its true use or is dead. > > > > There are unresolved questions from a customer point of view as > > to what they are > > actually going to get, what difference it will make and how they > > can measure > > their performance and the improvements from QoS. > > > > There is a real demand for guaranteed bandwidth, however this > > tends to be in the > > form of absolute guarantees rather than improvements above "normal" hence > > ATM remaining a popular solution. > > > > There is a requirement to differentiate voice traffic, however this is > > necessarily done by the network anyway in order to offer the > > service, this being > > the case the customer doesnt pay extra or gets to know much about > > how all the > > fancy bits are done. > > > > > > On the face of it this is all negative. Nobody has responded > > saying there are > > genuine requirements for services to be offered to customers. Nor > > has anybody > > responded with any descriptions of implementations. > > > > I conclude either the people doing this are successful and keep > > their secret > > safe or the world is yet to sell largescale QoS across IP. > > > > Steve > > > > > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > I've been looking through the various qos/cos options > > available, my particular > > > area was in how IP (MPLS perhaps) compares and can be a > > substitute for ATM. > > > > > > Well, theres lots of talk and hype out there, from simple IP > > queuing eg cisco > > > priority queuing, rsvp, diffserv, mpls traffic engineering etc > > > > > > But two things are bugging me.. > > > > > > 1. To what extent have providers implemented QoS for their customers > > > > > > 2. Hype aside, to what extent do customers actually want this > > (and by this I > > > dont just mean that they want the latest QoS because its the > > 'latest thing', > > > there has to be a genuine reason for them to want it). And this > > takes me back to > > > my ATM reference where there is a clear major market still out > > there of ATM > > > users and what would it take to migrate them to an IP solution? > > > > > > Also, how are people implementing bandwidth on demand (dynamic > > allocation > > > controlled by the customer) solutions to customers > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Fiber cut NE USA
by Martin Hepworth 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Hi Looks theres a fiber cut in NE USA. It's definitly affecting what's left of PSI-net's network trans USA. Anyone got any details? -- Martin Hepworth Senior Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Ltd +44 (0)1865 842300 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

4 3

looking glass
by Scott Granados 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

What are people using for looking glass software. Is it just some simple perl code which grabs data from the router or is it more complex than that? Thanks Scott

5 4

What is a reasonable range for global BGP table size?
by Rob Healey 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

How big is the global BGP table running these days? 100K? 110K? Bigger? -Rob

9 9

fractional gigabit ethernet links?
by Alex Rubenstein 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Hello, I'm trying to troubleshoot a problem with a fractional (311 mbit/second) gigabit-ethernet line provided to me by a metro access provider. Specifically, it is riding a gig-e port of a 15454. The behavior we are seeing is an occasional loss of packets, adding up to a few percent. When doing a cisco-type ping across the link, we were seeing a consistent 3 to 4 percent loss. For fun, the provider brought it up to 622 mbit/second, and loss dropped considerably, but still hangs at about 1 to 2 percent. There is no question in my mind the issue is with the line, as we've done a wide variety of tests to rule out the local equipment (MSFC2s, FYI). Any clues would be exceptional. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

12 16

RE: problems with 701
by Frank Scalzo 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

You're leaving 701. BR's are exit points toward a peer. If you go through a BR you are into a peering connection. That connection may be messed up, and sure that's their problem. But you'll get a lot further asking the right question is there a problem with 701-X peering in the south-east. -----Original Message----- From: Chad Oleary [mailto:col@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:05 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: Bryan Heitman; Christopher L. Morrow Subject: Re: problems with 701 We're starting to see the same issues with uunet, again. Anyone else seeing this? Trying to reach Qwest... traceroute to 63.146.190.1 (63.146.190.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 esc-lp2-gw.e-solutionscorp.com (63.118.220.1) 1.167 ms 1.163 ms 1.142 ms 2 500.Serial2-10.GW1.TPA2.ALTER.NET (157.130.149.9) 1.097 ms 1.059 ms 1.044 ms 3 161.at-1-0-0.XL4.ATL1.ALTER.NET (152.63.81.190) 13.839 ms 14.108 ms 16.638 ms 4 0.so-3-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.238) 14.370 ms 14.587 ms 14.553 ms 5 POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.82.193) 13.928 ms 14.099 ms 14.053 ms 6 * * * ... Thanks, --Chad On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:45:49 +0000 (GMT) > From: Christopher L. Morrow <chris(a)UU.NET> > To: Bryan Heitman <bryanh(a)communitech.net> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: problems with 701 > > > wow.. what are you trying to get to? This looks like it entered 701 on > hop 6 and exited at hop 8 to some other network which sttms to have some > delivery problems of its own. > > > > --Chris > (chris(a)uu.net) > ####################################################### > ## UUNET Technologies, Inc. ## > ## Manager ## > ## Customer Router Security Engineering Team ## > ## (W)703-886-3823 (C)703-338-7319 ## > ####################################################### > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Bryan Heitman wrote: > > > > > anyone know what is going on over at uu? > > > > seeing problems all over... > > > > > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 216.79.187.254 > > > 4 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 172.25.57.5 > > > 5 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 205.152.37.184 > > > 6 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET > > > [157.130.76.97] > > > 7 10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 0.so-2-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET > > > [152.63.85.38] > > > 8 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET [152.63.82.193] > > > 9 * * * Request timed out. > > > 10 * * * Request timed out. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Bryan Heitman > > Interland, Inc. > > > > >

1 0

problems with 701
by Bryan Heitman 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

anyone know what is going on over at uu? seeing problems all over... > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 216.79.187.254 > 4 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 172.25.57.5 > 5 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 205.152.37.184 > 6 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET > [157.130.76.97] > 7 10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 0.so-2-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET > [152.63.85.38] > 8 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET [152.63.82.193] > 9 * * * Request timed out. > 10 * * * Request timed out. Best regards, Bryan Heitman Interland, Inc.

4 3

msfc v msfc2
by G. Scott Granados 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Sorry for being a bit ot:). In short whats the difference between the Cisco msfc2 and msfc? I know the msfc2 is newer but what makes it better? A url compairing the two would be fine also. Thanks Scott

2 1

Cisco 4000 series switches
by Joes Jobs 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Please excuse the duplicate post (If there is one) Hello all, After being tasked to diagnose why a node is reporting a Half duplex connection I ran across an unusual observation. I've pretty much always assumed that what a switch reported as a status regarding the link of a node was the actual status of the line to be the case. However, when I checked the actual line state using a Fluke Net tool box I was surprised to discover a discrepancy. The scenario is this, the unit in question is a Cisco 4006 Catalyst. The port being connected to is set to Auto negotiate. Once the unit in question connects over a fairly poor RJ-45 connection using auto negotiate (no not beyond 100 meters, actually 280 feet) the switch reports: Port Name Status Vlan Level Duplex Speed Type ----- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------ ------ ----- ------------ 3/2 connect 106 normal a-full a-100 10/100BaseTX However the line analyzer says duplex is half, but advertised full. When I set the node in question to Half Duplex, the switch reports half duplex as well. Port Name Status Vlan Level Duplex Speed Type ----- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------ ------ ----- ------------ 3/2 connect 106 normal a-half a-100 10/100BaseTX Is this a common situation or just a mis-understanding of the column that makes up Duplex for the Cisco IOS? Or is it that The Cisco Switch truly is trying to do full duplex but the end node is only doing half. If so would/should I see line errors at some point under heavy load/traffic? And if not why would the line analyzer see the connection as half when the switch is reporting full? And btw, Firmware is at 5.5(11) Any thoughts appreciated. TIA -Joe

3 2

Re: What is a reasonable range for global BGP table size?
by Ross Chandler 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

>Hi, Rob. > >] How big is the global BGP table running these days? > >I'm seeing an average of around 115K prefixes. The delta isn't very >high. You can see some data here: > >http://www.cymru.com/BGP > >Thanks, >Rob. I like the delta graph. One nice thing to do is graph the number of paths on the same plot used for prefixes since both numbers are of the same order anyway. With mrtg, prefixes are "in" and paths "out" or vice versa. I'm seeing are 113k/30k. Regards Ross

2 1