- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: AS Leakage
by troy＠clownhammer.org 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

doubtful jon... they are just practicing that crazy voodoo called "SmartRouting"(tm). doubtful that they wont have other paths to the Mighty UU. Wow, lookey here! They have multiple paths! 4:59pm troy@unagi ~ > host -l customer.alter.net | grep exodus exodus-tco2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.186 peoexodus.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.147.206 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 137.39.133.162 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.37.78 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.46 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.50 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.54 exodus-lax4-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.190 exodus-dca8-oc12-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.60.90 exodus-ewr1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.226 exodus-sea1-oc3.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.186 exodus-chi6-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.194 exodus-bos1-oc3.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.202 exodus-tco1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.182 exodus-tco1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.182 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.218 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.202 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.206 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.210 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.214 >That's strange. Your 701 connection goes down and you've filtered any >backup route you had into them. Good thinking. > >--- >John Fraizer >EnterZone, Inc > ================================================ thus speaks the Maven of Madness, the Hierophant of Hate, the Minister of Malice, the Rabbi of Rage, the Apothecary of Angst, the Oracle of Outrage, the Vizier of Vituperation, the Archon of Anger... you get the drift. http://www.clownhammer.org

8 13

Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Sean Donelan 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

On Tue, 03 April 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote: > At 18:35 03/04/01, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > >Don't know how the world looks like in the US, but here a SDH/Sonet > >provider will never guarentee diversity of his/her circuit to that of a different provider, > > Interesting, though they do guarantee that to NATO > circuits. smd, are you able to get diverse local paths over there ? NATO doesn't get guaranteed diverse circuits. However, during an emergency, NATO does get first dibs on any circuit still working. So, if you have diverse circuits, and one goes down, its possible your other circuit will be pre-empted if it is the only way to restore the NATO circuit.

2 1

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Roeland Meyer 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

> > You can think that way all you want to, right up to the > time when your local > > RBOC decides it will no longer serve you. At which time, > good luck shoving > > those bytes down the wire. > > I may be stupid or something, but the above doesn't appear to make the > least bit of sense. Do you have data that the RBOCs and CLECs > are moving > out of the circuit (DS0 on up) delivery business? No, but individual circuits go down all the time. Simply because you have a big name provider, doesn't mean that they will be more reliable. Only the reasons for the outage change. The recommendations for multi-homing remain the same.

3 2

Major Qwest ATM outage.
by Scott Call 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

For any of us unlucky enough to have Qwest ATM service, they are having a major outage. Started exactly at midnight eastern, and the MAST person I spoke with made a reference to lucent conference calls, so I'm betting on a bungled software upgrade or something similar. Qwest Master ticket # 219247. -S Scott Call Router Geek, ATGi "Only the Phoenix rises and does not descend And everything changes. And nothing is truly lost." - Neil Gaiman, The Wake

1 0

Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Sean Donelan 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

On Wed, 04 April 2001, Stephen Stuart wrote: > smd(a)clock.org (Hi, Sean) said: > > > P.S.: Isn't it cool that none of us is using an address which in any > > way informs a person who didn't already know, who it is that we > > work for? > > The thing I thought on reading that was that it was further evidence > that you (me, everyody) should be conservative in that you send, and > liberal in what you receive. The comment illustrates (to me, I'm not > trying to put words in Sean's mouth here) that, in an industry as > small as ours, you should exercise caution in dealing with people; > someone working at a startup with a DSL connection to the net today > could very well be an influential person at a global provider or > vendor on which you depend tomorrow. The person you flame tonight > might be the person you need to help you solve a problem tomorrow. I flamed the White House in the Washington Post once. You'll notice I don't post from my employer's account anymore :-)

2 1

Is the answer a bigger club? (was Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers)
by Sean Donelan 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

On Wed, 04 April 2001, Stephen Griffin wrote: > Again, very little reason to need multiple providers if the provider > is good. If you're concerned about circuit grooming, write it into > your contract with _severe_ penalties for failure to meet the terms > of the contract. Kung Fu flashback sequence: In time, you will understand. Fortunately, lawyers can not change the laws of nature or statistics no matter what they tell you. No matter what you write into your contract, stuff will go wrong. Car insurance means when you crash your car, the insurance company pays for a new car. It does not mean your car will never crash. By lowering the deductible, all you are changing is the premium you pay. Want a 99% SLA, the premium is $X. Want a 99.999% the premium is $X+N. Want 100% the premium is $X+X+N. VISA (the credit card people) uses two independent providers for its international network, and has a department of people verifying the redundancy of their network. The US Government uses two independent providers for its international network, and has a department of people verifying the redudancy of the circuits which "can't go down." Guess what, NORAD once lost all of its triple-redundant, diversely-routed circuits due to a carrier mistake. If you aren't the size of the US Government or VISA (I'm not sure which has more power) I suspect you won't be able to write penalties more severe than either of them imposed on the carriers. And even with those penalties, circuits still fail due to carrier mistakes. When I did the math, and paid money for circuits, I discovered for the premium I paid for a 100% SLA I could often buy two diverse circuits from two different providers with no SLA for less. And to cap it off, the actual reliability of those two circuits was better than the single 100% SLA circuit I would pay extra.

1 0

Qwest frame-relay outage?
by Bulger, Tim 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

> I just got off the phone with Qwest and they said they are experiencing a > widespread outage that is affecting the majority of their frame-relay > network. I have PVCs down between Texas and California and Virginia. Is > anyone else experiencing this problem? The ticket number was 219247. > > Thanks, > Tim Bulger > EA.com Network Engineering

1 0

Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by smd＠clock.org 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

rja asks: | smd, are you able to get diverse local paths over there ? ^^^^^ Ironically, Jesper Skriver (on your To: line) is as close to my "here" as just about anyone else on the list, and is working for a rather large provider of local loops, so I wouldn't discount his answer just because he's not me. :-) I would comment further, but I lack sufficient bandwidth in the absence of my slightly delayed DSL to be able to type it out... Sean. P.S.: Isn't it cool that none of us is using an address which in any way informs a person who didn't already know, who it is that we work for? P.P.S.: More useful answer: yes, in some places in Europe, but not everywhere. Where possible, pricing and amount of work necessary are non-uniform.

4 3

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Roeland Meyer 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

> From: Stephen Griffin [mailto:stephen.griffin@rcn.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:31 PM > No one has said that multiple circuits via multiple entrance > facilities > via multiple carriers is a bad thing. Actually, someone did. See original posting.

1 0

Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Hank Nussbacher 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

I have a feeling this one may start another very large NANOG thread: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0402routing.html -Hank

7 11