- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Spring planting season - Stockton CA fiber cut
by Sean Donelan 27 Apr '01

27 Apr '01

It must be spring-time, folks are digging things up again. There is another fiber cut near Stockton CA affecting several carriers.

1 0

RE: cerf/att.net peering and or transit issues?
by Daniel L. Golding 27 Apr '01

27 Apr '01

The downtime was considerable. It was described as a "catastrophic failure". No exact details of exactly what happened, but appearently something more significant than the average fiber cut, to judge by the length of time between techs arriving on site, and the eventual repair. Daniel Golding NetRail,Inc. "Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Ball" On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Seth H Holmes wrote: > FYI: They've given a 7PM EDT repair. And I'm seeing our fiber with them > coming up right about now. > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Daniel Golding wrote: > > > > > This was (and is) a major Broadwing fiber cut. > > > > - Daniel Golding > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > > > Sean Donelan > > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:24 PM > > > To: jade.deane(a)HelloNetwork.com > > > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > > > Subject: Re: cerf/att.net peering and or transit issues? > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a fiber cut about that time, which may be affecting > > > routing and transit in various cross-country networks. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 April 2001, "Jade E. Deane" wrote: > > > > Anyone experiencing issues transiting or peering with legacy cerf.net? > > > > > > > > Started noticing issues around 2:30pm PDT > > > > > > > > Jade > > > > > > > > Jade E. Deane > > > > Sr. Network Engineer > > > > helloNetwork > > > > Las Vegas, Nevada > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > Seth H Holmes > sholmes(a)route-fu.net ICQ# 10085439 > http://www.route-fu.net > > "I believe a self-righteous liberal with a cause is more dangerous > than a Hell's Angel with an attitude." -- author unknown > > | /"\ > | \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN > | X AGAINST HTML MAIL > | / \ AND POSTINGS >

1 0

Re: cerf/att.net peering and or transit issues?
by Sean Donelan 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

There was a fiber cut about that time, which may be affecting routing and transit in various cross-country networks. On Thu, 26 April 2001, "Jade E. Deane" wrote: > Anyone experiencing issues transiting or peering with legacy cerf.net? > > Started noticing issues around 2:30pm PDT > > Jade > > Jade E. Deane > Sr. Network Engineer > helloNetwork > Las Vegas, Nevada

2 1

cerf/att.net peering and or transit issues?
by Jade E. Deane 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

Anyone experiencing issues transiting or peering with legacy cerf.net? Started noticing issues around 2:30pm PDT Jade Jade E. Deane Sr. Network Engineer helloNetwork Las Vegas, Nevada

3 2

RE: Why? Because ICANN
by Cerqua, Toby 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

Nevermind! I take it back! I'd never have imagined the amount of traffic that would generate, heh. Sorry to disappoint, but I have to keep my webserver from keeling over dead. -----Original Message----- From: Cerqua, Toby [mailto:tcerqua@platinumsystems.net] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:59 PM To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: RE: Why? Because ICANN For those of you who can't get through to it, I've provided a temporary alternate locale: http://www.blarf.com/media/icann/icannstage.asp

3 2

Re: Why? Because ICANN [mirror site]
by Sean Donelan 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

On Thu, 26 April 2001, Alan Clegg wrote: > Unless the network is lying to me again, Cerqua, Toby said: > > > > Nevermind! I take it back! I'd never have imagined the amount of traffic > > that would generate, heh. > > Sorry to disappoint, but I have to keep my webserver from keeling over dead. > > Ok, I'll give it a try: > > http://icann.wetworks.org/icannstage.swf SQUID is your friend.

1 0

RE: jumbo frames
by Roeland Meyer 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

You are correct and my original answer stated such. The original question didn't differentiate. It simply asked who was using jumbo packets. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@tndh.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:55 PM > To: Roeland Meyer; ALH-IETF; John Fraizer; Paul Lantinga > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: jumbo frames > > > > Roeland you are talking about jumbo frames from the end > system lan, while > John is talking about only using the jumbo frames between the > routers. My > point was that in John's environment the packets will all be > 1500 since the > packets are restricted to that size just to get to the router > with the GE > interface. I understand that there are perf gains as long as > the entire path > supports the larger packets, but I don't understand the claim > that having a > bigger pipe in the middle helps. > > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Roeland Meyer > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:13 PM > To: 'alh-ietf(a)tndh.net'; John Fraizer; Paul Lantinga > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: jumbo frames > > > > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@tndh.net] > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:47 AM > > > > April 26, 2001 9:29 AM John Fraizer wrote: > > > We only have jumbo frames enabled on router<->router links. > > The GigE > > > ports facing the aggregation switches runs standard 1500 MTU. > > > > Hence my original question. Packets across the GE will be > > 1500 unless you > > are packing them. > > > > April 25, 2001 8:10 PM John Fraizer wrote: > > > Partially because I can. Partially because there seems to be a > > > performance increase when you start stuffing the pipe. > > > > Assuming you are just passing the packets as received from > > the aggregation > > switch, this would only happen if your router hardware was better at > > managing jumbo buffer allocations than 1500B ones. Clearly it > > will waste > > large chunks of memory, so do you have measurements to show > the actual > > performance increase? > > This depends on the type of traffic. We use it to enhance > performance of the > data tier. We've jiggered the TCP/IP stacks for ~4500 byte > packets and have > knee-capped the slow-start algorithm (which doesn't make > sense in a pure > switched environment anyway). What we then wind up with, is a > dedicated data > LAN between our application servers and the Oracle database > servers. It > comes out to about an order of magnitude increase in > performance and SQL > query responsiveness. At first we went to jumbo packets. We saw such a > radical improvement that we started investigating and found > the slow-start > issue. Jumbo packets are one way around the slow-start > problem if you can't > jigger the stack itself. Most of the queries are reasonably > short so we saw > some serious improvements by killing the slow-start. If you > can modify your > IP stack then it still pays to use jumbo packets because you > reduce the > overhead on the wire. > > We got sufficient performance improvement that we were able > to defer GigE > implementation, at some sites. Those sites are using switched > FDX 100baseTX. > >

1 0

RE: jumbo frames
by Richard A. Steenbergen 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:12:33PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > This depends on the type of traffic. We use it to enhance performance > of the data tier. We've jiggered the TCP/IP stacks for ~4500 byte > packets and have knee-capped the slow-start algorithm (which doesn't > make sense in a pure switched environment anyway). What we then wind > up with, is a dedicated data LAN between our application servers and > the Oracle database servers. It comes out to about an order of > magnitude increase in performance and SQL query responsiveness. At > first we went to jumbo packets. We saw such a radical improvement that > we started investigating and found the slow-start issue. Jumbo packets > are one way around the slow-start problem if you can't jigger the > stack itself. Most of the queries are reasonably short so we saw some > serious improvements by killing the slow-start. If you can modify your > IP stack then it still pays to use jumbo packets because you reduce > the overhead on the wire. OS tip of the day: If you run FreeBSD, check out sysctl net.inet.tcp.slowstart_flightsize. This lets you set a multiple for the initial window size and can be very beneficial for servers which do lots of quick start/stop transfers over TCP. I suspect this was much more useful to you then jumbo frames in that application. And on an unrelated note I have a mirror of the Because ICANN swf at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/video/icannstage.swf, and I'd like to thank the creators for not including any AYB references... We now return you to your regularly scheduled "can someone from the globix noc in botswana call me about my t1"... :P -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

RE: liscensed wireless net service delivery
by Thomas Gainer 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

I have about 60 such devices deployed in the field from microwave radio to lasers, including 28 Triton IFU devices Jim is talking about. More than happy to answer questions regarding deployment and reliability. Thomas -----Original Message----- From: J Harris [mailto:jim@angrybuddha.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 3:07 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: airwavemaster(a)hotmail.com Subject: liscensed wireless net service delivery I am using both 100MB and OC-3 systems from Triton Network Systems to connect buildings, with excellent results and reliability. The inhibitor for most companies is acquiring usage rights from spectrum license holders. TNS is beginning to offer a package deal including both the wireless units and license rights for one monthly lease rate, or purchase. Either way, you can't beat the convenience, patching a 100FX into each site. I believe the availability covers much of the U.S. Let me know if you want more info off-line. -Jim -----Original Message----- From: Jayson Mays [mailto:airwavemaster@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:15 PM To: Nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: liscensed wireless net service delivery Is anyone using licensed wireless (100MB or OC-3) for corporate service delivery? Who's system and how satisfied are you? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

RE: Why? Because ICANN
by Cerqua, Toby 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

For those of you who can't get through to it, I've provided a temporary alternate locale: http://www.blarf.com/media/icann/icannstage.asp -----Original Message----- From: Mike Batchelor [mailto:mikebat@tmcs.net] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:25 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Why? Because ICANN It's funny, so laugh. http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html --- ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US SOMEBODY SET UP US THE BOMB

1 0