- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Hosting Failover Question
by Rishi Singh 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

5 seconds is very good if you can attain it. I have two Nokia IP650s running with VRRP monitored circuits. The firewalls are constantly trading vrrp packets and firewall table sync state. The fastest failover I've gotten it down to is about 30 seconds with complete stateful failover. This has worked well for my applications, which are financial revenue based trading apps. By the time the trader's screen has frozen, it takes them about 15 seconds to bang on the keyboard, 5 seconds to get up and scream, and 10 seconds to call someone, by the time its already failed over ;-). -----Original Message----- From: James DeMong [mailto:James.DeMong@telus.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:20 PM To: Nanog@Merit. Edu (E-mail) Subject: Hosting Failover Question I am looking for a Rule of Thumb on failover for hosting, mostly tcp(webserver), some udp (audio/video streaming) stuff. My thought is that 5 seconds to failover when a network element(switch/router/load balancer/FW) fails is reasonable. How many seconds is reasonable for fail over in such a situation? Thanks in advance. __ James DeMong Network Design Specialist TELUS Advanced Communications Phone: (403) 503-3718 Email: James.DeMong(a)telus.com

1 0

CABLE & WIRELESS STATEMENT
by PETER JANSEN 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

CABLE & WIRELESS STATEMENT As part of the review of our current peering arrangements, last Saturday (June 2nd), Cable & Wireless disconnected PSINet's peering connections as they no longer meet our publicly stated peering requirements (www.cw.com/us/peering) Over the last few days, discussions have continued between Cable & Wireless and PSINet to find a resolution to this issue for the benefit of all parties. On June 5 PSINet agreed, through a letter of intent, to meet Cable & Wireless' peering policy. PSINet has come forward with new information that may demonstrate PSINet meets Cable & Wireless' peering policy. As an expression of good faith, Cable & Wireless has reestablished the peering connections with PSINet for a period of 60 days while the parties consider PSINet's new information and, if applicable, negotiate in good faith a new peering agreement. Peter Jansen Cable & Wireless

1 0

Sprint NAP
by Alex Rubenstein 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

So, I am trying to find out whats going on with the SprintNAP; I'd heard that they were going to have an ATM platform, yada yada, but whatever. Anyone know anything about it? Who to contact? Pricing?

1 0

Re: And then there were two
by Ron Buchalski 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

>From: Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: And then there were two >Date: 5 Jun 2001 17:16:13 -0700 > > >If you accept the premise that "peer == equal" does that mean >in the end there will be only two ISPs each with exactly 50% >of the world's Internet because no one else will be an equal? Why can't you have more than two 'equals'? Couldn't you have three 'equals' or four 'equals'? It would be just as difficult to maintain three or four _exact_ divisions as it would be to maintain two. >I've never understood how the word "peer" mutated from its >technical definition arising from its use in the BGP protocol >to its use by marketing people. The keyword is 'marketing' people. Aren't they the ones who always twist and exploit technical terms? >As far as I can tell, EGP (Exterior Gateway Protocol) originally >used the term "neighbor." Berkeley used the berkelism "peer" in >their software and RFC 911 documenting their experience, and the >term stuck through EGP2, BGP1-4. > >If we still used the word "neighbor" would the phrase "Are you >a neighbor?" have a different ring than "Are you a peer?" You >can have lots of neighbors, even if you think you are superior >to all of them. You're thinking about this too much. The backhoes must be behaving today! ;-) -rb _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

3 3

Self Regulation (was Re: New peering criteria)
by smd＠clock.org 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

| I would imagine that such actions tend to irritate the hive of regulatory | officials. Self regulation would be one way to prevent such action. The answer is simple: have more lawyers than most jurisdictions have civil servants. q: what is a phone company? a: it's a law firm with a side-interest in telecommunications q: what do phone company facilities look like? a: boxes with no windows stuffed with lawyers and an antenna on top q: who has more employees? a standalone ISP or a phone company's legal branch's Human Resources department? a: that's not funny. see you in court. q: is it true that some phone companies' legal branches are revenue centres? a: oh yes. and don't forget that at least one IXC _literally_ sued itself into existence. Is there any serious and relevant regulatory authority which is going to intervene in a contractual dispute between parties which are NOT dominant in their industry? It seems to me that players like C&W face vigorous competition. Sean. PS - can you tell how much i hate it when vaguely technical people pose ex cathedra about vaguely legal & regulatory issues? - -- Sean Doran <smd(a)clock.org> >From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]: "mulch, noun. 1. a protective covering of half-rotten vegetable matter (cf legal department)"

3 2

Re: HTML-format postings
by Jim Shankland 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

Jonas Luster <jluster(a)d-fensive.com> writes: > It's not so much the people but the traffic. Top-Posting usually means = > =20 > Fullquote. Almost no top-poste I know bothers to shorten the content = > =20 > below his own $0.01. That said, let's just assume 10 top-posters with = > =20 > reasonably long texts in a row and you've got from 10 to 100 times more = > =20 [etc.] OK, off with your head, too, while we're at it :-)! Jim Shankland

1 0

Re: C&W Peering
by Sean Donelan 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

On Mon, 04 June 2001, "Moe Allen" wrote: > Affective this morning Cable & Wireless started de-peering with PSINET. > More when I receive a reply from: peering.admin(a)cwusa.com Since PSI still hosts one of the root servers (C.PSI.NET) C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, I hope C&W's customers understand the all ramifications of C&W's actions. Depending on the current state of the net, it may vary from a minor reduction in access to all possible servers to 1/13.

17 23

re:Small Exchanges
by William Charnock 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

This brings up an interesting question. I have several BPX ATM switches that I am not using for anything, and I had the bright idea that I would start up some AADS-like exchanges around the country if I could get enough interest. I pinged some of the Dallas area ISP's about the possibility of connecting (I still know some of the guys around here that haven't been gobbled up) and while some expressed interest in connecting, it didn't seem like enough of them were interested to warrant the effort. With the expansion of PAIX and Equinix (and others) into some of the other major markets, will metro exchanges become a thing of the past? Are there simply not enough medium-sized ISP's left in middle-tier markets to justify these types of exchanges? And are the bigger ISP's simply not interested in connecting to any of these metro exchanges? An even better question to this community is this: If I built it would you come? What markets would I need to locate these switches in to make it interesting? If I were to offer connection at cost +10-15% (for O+M) would that make it more interesting? By the way -- the ATM switches seem ideal for this to keep costs down (no collocation necessary), even though the marketplace seems to be moving to Ethernet exchanges. Does anyone have issues with ATM (other than the cell-tax) for this application? Thanks! -- William R. Charnock Director Core IP Tecnology Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 469-259-2260 (O) 972-523-2750 (C)

1 0

Negligent companies face DDOS liability
by Dan Hollis 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

http://www.hackerwhacker.com/showarticle.dyn?article=http://computerworld.c… I've been saying this for a long time. Sooner or later complacent/negligent/lazy/incompetent tier1's are going to be found liable for DDOS damages. I expect a flood of panicky RPF deployment as soon as the first lawsuits hit the courts. -Dan

2 1

Enron (was Re: C&W peering)
by Sean Donelan 07 Jun '01

07 Jun '01

On Wed, 06 June 2001, Toby_Williams(a)enron.net wrote: > What I find most interesting about all these disputes is that none of the major > players appear to be even slightly interested in settled interconnection - like > they have in the telephony world. What I find interesting is the telephone world is now trying to end settlements, and move more to the Internet model. The end of reciprocal compensation, FCC forcing international settlements down, forcing access fees down, etc. > There was a paper I saw ages ago: > > http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/cai/farnon.html > > that discussed some of the economics behind peering. Though it's a bit > old now, many of it's arguments hold true (hence todays CW/PSI/MFN/UUNet > conundrums). It also just begins to explore the possiblities (and > difficulties) of billaterally settled peering. Actually I sent e-mail to Scott and Maria yesterday asking about their paper. If they felt it still held true, or if the passage of time altered their perception. I remember there was also an economist from Michigan who wrote several papers about settlements and the Internet. I seem to recall he recently (i.e. last year) spoke about the fact the Internet wasn't behaving as some predicted. Instead of writing papers why the Internet must adopt settlements, I believe some economists are now writing papers why the Internet is still working without them. Settlements seem to work best when you have geographic monopolies or dupolies (e.g. regional bell telephone companies, regional pipelines, regional electric grids, regional train companies). And instead of building out your own infrastructure into a competitors region, you split the market into semi-exclusive franchises. Settlements don't seem to work when you have lots of competitors in the same market (e.g. airport rent-a-car companies). You don't see Hertz and Avis doing settlements and sharing the same fleet of cars depending who rents more cars each day. If we get to the point there are only 2-3 major ISPs in each geographic region of the globe, I would expect we would see more settlements (e.g. UUNET pays Telstra to delivery traffic in Australia, while Telstra pays UUNET to delivery traffic in the USA) based on some imaginary metric that is less than the cost of either of them invading the other's marketing region. Much like the RBOCs have split up the USA into SBC, Verizon, Qwest and Bellsouth.

2 1