- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers"
by Andrew Odlyzko 03 Dec '00

03 Dec '00

Sean, Since you have have chosen to ignore kc's "meta-operational content warning" On Sat, 02 December 2000, k claffy wrote: > [meta-operational content warning. > followup thread probably belongs on some other list] > > andrew odlyzko's latest > http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm I feel entitled to respond. First of all, your comments all appear to be based on the paper you cite, namely http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/high.network.cost.txt This is an entirely different paper on a different subject. (Moreover, just like the article kc cites, it is just a short overview of more detailed papers.) It is sort of like kc saying "Sean's new-born son is cute," and my responding "But his two-year old daughter is ugly." Either statement may be right or wrong, but there is little connection between them. Second, concerning the substance of your criticism, I think Andrew has some apples and oranges mixed together in some of his papers. For example, he compares the utilitization of telephone trunk circuits (33% busy) with corporate LANs (3-4% busy). But ignores the typical corporate PBX, which sits idle most of the night and weekend. I suspect if you compared the corporate LAN with the corporate PBX, the utilitization rates would be similar. And in most companies, the availability of good measurements for intra-PBX calling and intra-LAN usage would be hard to find. Of course, that would open the whole can of worms of why do companies buy their own PBX's instead of using Centrex service from the phone company? I do stand by the analysis of my papers. I do indeed mix apples and oranges, but that is inevitable in this context. In my 1998 paper with Kerry Coffman, "The size and growth rate of the Internet," we even say, to justify our efforts, that "While we cannot avoid comparing apples to oranges, we try not to compare apples to orange trees." However, the issues are definitely complex, and outside the scope of this mailing list. I would love to discuss this in greater detail with you, given your extensive knowledge of networks, as I think I could learn from such a discussion, but I would propose that we follow kc's warning and take this to a different forum. How about doing this through private email exchange? We can invite any members of this list who are interested in this issue to alert either one of us, and we will either cc them on the messages (if there are just a few), or set up a general short-term mailing list for the discussion. Would that be acceptable? Third, you write: But worst of all Andrew uses the *average* utilization, which is a poor way to measure utilization of data networks. Even utilization is a bit of a red herring because different absolute bandwidths. Networks (voice or data) are not designed using average utilization. Instead most designers use some type of peak utilization (95%, Mother's Day, etc). So what happens when a network gets near its peak utilization? With the voice network you get more busy signals. With the data network you get slower transfers. You appear to miss the point of the work. The aim of the analysis was to demonstrate that data networks are designed for and used for different purposes than the voice network, and that the commonly held notion that packet networks are superior to switched voice networks because they utilize transmission facilities more efficiently is just false. I am certainly not suggesting that average utilizations should be used in designing networks of any sort. Again, there is much more that can be said on this topic, but should not be said on this list. He also states the the traditional phone network continues to be more reliable than the Internet, which in my experience is an artifact of how the statistics are collected. If I called United Airlines' reservation number this year, I would think the telephone network reliability was pretty bad too. Instead the telephone network doesn't include end-to-end reachability in its reliability. But Internet measures such as Keynote do include end-to-end reachability. This is a debatable point which has been dealt with rather extensively on this list, so I will respond at greater length. I agree with much of what you say, but, lacking any good metric, still feel, based on my personal experience and other anecdotal evidence, that the claim about Internet's lower reliability is valid. As one bit of evidence, let me note that starting on Tuesday 12 days ago, and continuing through yesterday morning, my home connection (through a cable modem) was down each day from about 4:15 am to 5:30 am. The problem was finally fixed yesterday. (It's a long story having to do with the interaction of the VPN and the cable system.) Nothing like this has ever happened to me with voice phones, and this is definitely not the first problem of this nature. Having said all this, let me add that I do not think this in any way shows the superiority of the voice phone network to the Internet, any more than the higher utilization of transmission links does. I feel that reliability is often overrated, and that examples of cell phones as well as PC's running Windows show that people care more about other things. Andrew

2 1

RE: pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers"
by Gregory Soo 03 Dec '00

03 Dec '00

-----Original Message----- From: CAnet-3-NEWS(a)canarie.ca [mailto:CAnet-3-NEWS@canarie.ca] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 2:36 PM Subject: Internet Growth: Myth and Reality, Use and Abuse For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 3 Optical Internet program web site at http://www.canet3.net/news/news.html ------------------------------------------- [There has been considerable debate on the issue of Internet traffic growth. I have been guilty as any one of confusing the issue. But I think the following information will clarify some of the confusion. Very simply it is extremely rare when the offered load to the Internet doubles more than once very 7 months. But because of the classic N squared problem of network interconnection the actual network capacity must grow in capacity at a doubling rate of 3 to 4 months to accommodate this growth in offered load. --BSA] Actual Internet traffic growth rates of 100 percent per year are considerably less than the much-ballyhooed doubling every 3 or 4 months. But even these observed rates are still unprecedented and should be provoking new ways of planning. Andrew Odlyzko Andrew Odlyzko is Head, Mathematics and Cryptography Research Department, AT&T Labs - Research, Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. Dr. Odlyzko has been writing about the evolution of the computing environment for a number of years. He last wrote for iMP in June 2000. http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 06:26:22 -0500 (EST) >From: mo(a)UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) >To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu >Subject: 100% per year, etc > >Dave, > >I see people still don't really understand the difference >between offered load (measured as gigabits injected into >the edge of the network) and network capacity (measured in >gigabit-route-miles of trunking). > >This is indeed somewhat subtle and possibly counter-intuitive. > >For offered load to double every year, network capacity >must double every 4 months or so, at least in our network >(UUNET). It is slowing down a some, but that's still pretty fast. > >This is actually a pretty simple result from graph theory, >once one gets the picture right (as are most results >from graph theory - grin). > >I admit it took me a while to get the picture right, >especially about how to explain what's going on. > >Consider an network of two nodes connected by one mile >of fiber. > >In this network, it's pretty clear that the number of >gigabits of offered load should be equal to the number of >gigabit-miles of trunking between the two nodes. > >Note that it's only the NUMBERS that are equal - the UNITS >of the numbers are different. One is gigabits/sec, the >other is (gigabits/sec)*miles. This means they can never >be *equal*, but the two numbers can grow together - maybe >even related by a constant of 1 mile, as in this case. > >Now consider a real network. > >The network is much more complex than two nodes with one >link, and each of those nodes is generating traffic which >can go to any arbitrary destination node on a >packet-by-packet basis. > >In North America alone, there are "35 NFL Cities" which >account for a significant fraction of the population >(people or computers, take your pick), but there are also >many more computers located other places who also wish to >have high-performance service. This means the trunking >must go a lot of places and be richly connected because... > >Every computer expects to reach every other computer with >nearly equal quality. While Warhole's Theorem is still >relevant, on the Internet you are famous for 15 milliseconds, >so who is famous changes very quickly. > >The resulting traffic slosh can be very large and the >network trunking capacity (gigabit-route-miles) better >be in place to handle it or Bad Things(TM) happen. > >The result is that for UUNET's network (I can't speak for >others) to handle the 100% increase in gigabit/sec offered >load over 12 months, the gigabits/sec-route-miles capacity >of the network must increase 100% about every 4 months. >Again, note the difference in the units of those two >numbers. > >The planning problem for telephony networks is rather different >because the dynamics of telephone calls are so much slower >and the data rate required is perfectly predictable. > >I dare say that if 800 numbers were routinely "SlashDotted", >the outlook of voice network planners would be rather different, >and that's ignoring the huge difference in bit-mass moved >in the two cases. > >The deep intuition about network growth dynamics developed >over the years with voice networks simply does not yeild >workable results when applied to very large data networks >which exhibit huge dynamic ranges of traffic slosh and the >astounding doubling of offered load every year. (and this >is still the case even given how few people currently enjoy >"broadband" access) > >So the statements about growth of offered load and growth of network >capacity (no matter how much "ballyhooed") are not inconsistent. >They are taking about two different but highly interrelated things. > > cheers, > -mo > >======================== >Michael D. O'Dell >Senior Vice President, Chief Scientist >UUNET - the Worldcom Internet Company >Room E1-3-117 >22001 Loudon County Parkway >Ashburn, VA 20147 >Voice: +1-703-886-5890 >Fax: +1-703-886-5806 >Email: mo(a)uu.net For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ ------------------------------------- These news items and comments are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the CANARIE board or management. Bill St. Arnaud Senior Director Network Projects CANARIE bill.st.arnaud(a)canarie.ca -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 8:05 AM To: amo(a)research.att.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers" On Sun, 03 December 2000, Andrew Odlyzko wrote: > Since you have have chosen to ignore kc's "meta-operational content > warning" > > On Sat, 02 December 2000, k claffy wrote: > > [meta-operational content warning. > > followup thread probably belongs on some other list] > > > > andrew odlyzko's latest > > http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm > > I feel entitled to respond. > > First of all, your comments all appear to be based on the paper you > cite, namely > > http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/high.network.cost.txt > > This is an entirely different paper on a different subject. (Moreover, > just like the article kc cites, it is just a short overview of more > detailed papers.) It is sort of like kc saying "Sean's new-born son > is cute," and my responding "But his two-year old daughter is ugly." > Either statement may be right or wrong, but there is little connection > between them. I skipped over that paper because the basic topic in your paper "Myth of Internet growth Numbers" was covered extensively on this list when the "doubling every 90 days" number was first published a couple of years ago. I think the original source was traced back to a comment made by Mike O'Dell at UUNET. If I recall the conclusion at the time was, at best, the comment was taken very much out of context. You point out that politicians and venture capitalists continue to cite the number to support their projects. Ok, I suppose someone had to say the emperor isn't wearing clothes. But I thought you had some more interesting ideas in the other papers. I think the growth claim is a bit like the last place television channel announcing "they have the fastest growing newscast." It is much easier to double a small number than a large number. But eventually you run out of new viewers. The interesting question isn't why is the Internet acting like a Ponzi scheme. The interesting question is when will the Internet growth curve change from going straight up to an S-shaped curve? Every once in a while, someone will plot the Internet growth curve against the television growth curve, FM radio growth curve, CD player growth curve, etc. The problem is we can't compare them yet, because we don't know where the bend in the Internet growth curve is, yet. So, does you data show the knee was in 1995-1996? Or are we still on the exponential part of the curve? If we are past the knee, its bad news for all the carriers, new and old, since stock price is mostly based on future growth expectation.

1 0

Facts, Statistics and Urban Legends from the backhoe convention
by Sean Donelan 03 Dec '00

03 Dec '00

A brief review of tidbits from the backhoe convention, aka underground damage prevention conference. These folks take their marking paint very seriously. I didn't know how many different types of orange paint existed before. A review of 582 damage incidents caused by excavator error resulted in an average cost to the excavator of $1,488 per incident. It is often less expensive for the excavator to dig through the utilities than around them. In one court case, the excavator's president testified that it was his company's standard practice to ignore OSHA regulations, ANSI standards, and guidelines set out in Bell South brochures and to always excavate with mechanized equipment directly over the orange paint marks showing the location of underground telecommunications facilities. He further testified that his company averaged one and one-half cable cuts a month, and considered damging underground facilities as simple a cost of doing business. My questions: If he always dug directly over the orange paint marks, why was the locate so poor he only hit a cable once ever month and a half? Directional drilling has resulted in a dramatic increase in damage to underground facilities. The US Department of Transportation has a safety study published in 1999. AT&T has developed a system for monitoring the drillhead called DrillCheck, and is licensing it for use by others. AT&T receives 3,000,000 cable locate requests per year. Due to competiton AT&T has stopped its flying route survellience. AT&T found stopping the fly-overs didn't affect the number of cable cuts. MCI/Worldcom has found one of its most effective tools is handing out $2 hats and other trinkets to railway workers and excavators. Hats appear to serve the same purpose as T-shirts for the Internet. Sprint estimates the cost to repair a single cable cut between $50,000 to $65,000. Loss of Use costs may be over $200,000. In 1995 cable cuts affected 32 air traffic control centers according to the NTSB. One-call centers are operating in 49 states and District of Colombia. Kiewett/Level 3 reported they averaged about 5.5 miles of installed fiber duct per utility strike. Their best run was 10 miles per strike, their worst performance was 3.77 miles per strike. The $350 million judgement against Qwest was a big topic of discussion. The National Telecommunication Damage Prevention Council (www.ntdpc.com) was giving out videotapes of the new "Dig Safely" campaign. They've decided the "No Digging" symbole (the backhoe and shovel with the red No symbole) was a bad idea. The new campaign is focusing on educating excavators on how to "Dig Safely" instead of stopping them from doing their work. Although there are no hard numbers, parallel builds by other carriers appeared to be the major source of cable cuts among the long-distance fiber carriers. Several of the other carriers were hoping one of the more recent entrants into the long distance business would finish their build soon, so they would stop cutting other carriers. Perhaps more important, since it is often the utilities themselves who hire the excavators, several of them have now realized it is in their own best interest not to always use the low-bidder. They are now keeping track of indvidual contractors performance, including damage to other utilities, as part of their bid and contract evaluation. Several of the major carriers are proposing model state legislation, which among several things would include the name of the project owner on the dig permit and one-call notification.

1 0

Re: pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers"
by Sean Donelan 03 Dec '00

03 Dec '00

On Sun, 03 December 2000, Andrew Odlyzko wrote: > Since you have have chosen to ignore kc's "meta-operational content > warning" > > On Sat, 02 December 2000, k claffy wrote: > > [meta-operational content warning. > > followup thread probably belongs on some other list] > > > > andrew odlyzko's latest > > http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm > > I feel entitled to respond. > > First of all, your comments all appear to be based on the paper you > cite, namely > > http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/high.network.cost.txt > > This is an entirely different paper on a different subject. (Moreover, > just like the article kc cites, it is just a short overview of more > detailed papers.) It is sort of like kc saying "Sean's new-born son > is cute," and my responding "But his two-year old daughter is ugly." > Either statement may be right or wrong, but there is little connection > between them. I skipped over that paper because the basic topic in your paper "Myth of Internet growth Numbers" was covered extensively on this list when the "doubling every 90 days" number was first published a couple of years ago. I think the original source was traced back to a comment made by Mike O'Dell at UUNET. If I recall the conclusion at the time was, at best, the comment was taken very much out of context. You point out that politicians and venture capitalists continue to cite the number to support their projects. Ok, I suppose someone had to say the emperor isn't wearing clothes. But I thought you had some more interesting ideas in the other papers. I think the growth claim is a bit like the last place television channel announcing "they have the fastest growing newscast." It is much easier to double a small number than a large number. But eventually you run out of new viewers. The interesting question isn't why is the Internet acting like a Ponzi scheme. The interesting question is when will the Internet growth curve change from going straight up to an S-shaped curve? Every once in a while, someone will plot the Internet growth curve against the television growth curve, FM radio growth curve, CD player growth curve, etc. The problem is we can't compare them yet, because we don't know where the bend in the Internet growth curve is, yet. So, does you data show the knee was in 1995-1996? Or are we still on the exponential part of the curve? If we are past the knee, its bad news for all the carriers, new and old, since stock price is mostly based on future growth expectation.

1 0

Re: pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers"
by Sean Donelan 03 Dec '00

03 Dec '00

On Sat, 02 December 2000, k claffy wrote: > [meta-operational content warning. > followup thread probably belongs on some other list] > > andrew odlyzko's latest > http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/high.network.cost.txt I think Andrew has some apples and oranges mixed together in some of his papers. For example, he compares the utilitization of telephone trunk circuits (33% busy) with corporate LANs (3-4% busy). But ignores the typical corporate PBX, which sits idle most of the night and weekend. I suspect if you compared the corporate LAN with the corporate PBX, the utilitization rates would be similar. And in most companies, the availability of good measurements for intra-PBX calling and intra-LAN usage would be hard to find. Of course, that would open the whole can of worms of why do companies buy their own PBX's instead of using Centrex service from the phone company? I also expect if you compare similar points on the circuit hierarchy, similar utilizations would appear. Inter-POP circuits would be similar to Inter-CO trunks. Circuits between providers would be overloaded in the same way. And even inter-continental circuits would be similar between voice and data. But worst of all Andrew uses the *average* utilization, which is a poor way to measure utilization of data networks. Even utilization is a bit of a red herring because different absolute bandwidths. Networks (voice or data) are not designed using average utilization. Instead most designers use some type of peak utilization (95%, Mother's Day, etc). So what happens when a network gets near its peak utilization? With the voice network you get more busy signals. With the data network you get slower transfers. He also states the the traditional phone network continues to be more reliable than the Internet, which in my experience is an artifact of how the statistics are collected. If I called United Airlines' reservation number this year, I would think the telephone network reliability was pretty bad too. Instead the telephone network doesn't include end-to-end reachability in its reliability. But Internet measures such as Keynote do include end-to-end reachability.

1 0

pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers"
by k claffy 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

[meta-operational content warning. followup thread probably belongs on some other list] andrew odlyzko's latest http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm fwiw k

1 0

Call for Presentations - Atlanta
by Susan R. Harris 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS * * NANOG 21 * * February 18 - 20, 2001 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) will hold its 21st meeting in Atlanta, GA, between February 18-20, 2001. The meeting will be hosted by Riverstone Networks. NANOG conferences provide a forum for the coordination and dissemination of technical information related to large-scale (i.e., national/international) Internet backbone networking technologies and operational practices. NANOG meetings, held three times each year, include two days of short presentations, plus afternoon/evening tutorial sessions. Meetings are informal, with an emphasis on relevance to current backbone engineering practices. The conference draws around 600 participants, mainly consisting of engineering staff from large national service providers, and members of the research and education community. Now in its fifth year, NANOG evolved from the NSFNET "regional-techs" meetings, where technical staff from the regional networks met to discuss operational issues of common concern. With the emergence of the commercial Internet, NANOG meetings evolved to include a broader base of providers, network operators, and researchers. The meeting will be held at the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel. For more information about NANOG meetings, schedules, and logistics, see: http://www.nanog.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS NANOG invites presentations on backbone engineering, coordination, and research topics. Presentations should highlight issues relating to technology already deployed or soon to be deployed in core Internet backbones and exchange points. Previous meetings have included presentations on: - Backbone traffic engineering - Coordination of inter-provider QoS - Deployment experience with queueing disciplines (CAR, RED) - Inter-provider security and routing protocol authentication - Routing scalability in backbone infrastructures - Security issues for the Internet core - Routing policy specification and backbone router configuration - Building large-scale measurement infrastructure - Cooperative inter-provider caching - Alternatives to hot-potato routing - Recommendations on queue management and congestion avoidance - Experience with differentiated services - Reports from next-generation networks (Internet2, CA*net, etc.) - Inter-domain multicast deployment - Backbone network failure analysis Tutorials have covered topics such as: - BGP case studies - MPLS fundamentals - External route selection - IP multicast technologies - Distributed content caching in large IP networks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW TO PRESENT Submit an informal one- or two-paragraph abstract describing the presentation in email to nanog-support(a)nanog.org. The deadline for proposals is January 8, 2001. While the majority of speaking slots will be filled by January 8, a limited number of slots will be available after that date for topics that are exceptionally timely and important. Submissions will be reviewed by the NANOG Program Committee, and presenters will be notified of acceptance by January 22, 2001 NANOG also welcomes suggestions/recommendations for tutorials, panels and other presentation topics. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Dec 1 12:00:00 PST 2000 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 01Dec00 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 241100 92527 251100 92668 261100 92623 271100 92643 281100 92681 291100 92893 301100 93098 011200 93154 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 91.16.23.0/24 from AS11770 *** Bogus 219.219.219.0 from AS2563 AS Summary ---------- 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 01Dec00 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

Network Availability Report
by Jason Lixfeld 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

I'm looking for some kind of tool that can generate a report on network availability. For instance; this utility would run on a server and perform tests to other hosts and routers across the network. The usual Network Monitoring Tool tests like ping, port response, etc but also things like throughput between monitoring host and destination, packet-loss and a total percentage of availability for that host. Obviously the availability "number" would be dynamic based on the results of the tests and how the user configures the impact of those tests against the available percentage. Has anyone seen anything like this in one nice little package? What I'm going to do is give the head honchos a URL where all they have to do is click on a portion of our network and read off the uptime percentage. Thx!

2 1

RE: Network Availability Report
by Kevin_Badeen＠harte-hanks.com 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

Here is a spreadsheet with a drill down of diffrent monitoring solutions which we have tested. Its pretty in depth so enjoy :)(See attached file: monitorc.xls) Kevin Badeen Unix Administrator Harte-Hanks Response Management 512.434.5999 Tel 877.446.5548 Pag |--------+-----------------------> | | Jason Lixfeld| | | <jlixfeld@tea| | | m.look.ca> | | | | | | 12/01/2000 | | | 10:10 AM | | | | |--------+-----------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "'Kevin_Badeen(a)harte-hanks.com '" <Kevin_Badeen(a)harte-hanks.com>, Jason Lixfeld <jlixfeld(a)team.look.ca> | | cc: "'nanog(a)nanog.org '" <nanog(a)nanog.org> | | Subject: RE: Network Availability Report | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Depends on how well it works, as far as I'm concerned. -----Original Message----- From: Kevin_Badeen(a)harte-hanks.com To: Jason Lixfeld Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org; owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Sent: 01/12/00 11:06 AM Subject: Re: Network Availability Report How much momney do you want to spend? Kevin Badeen Unix Administrator Harte-Hanks Response Management |--------+-----------------------> | | Jason Lixfeld| | | <jlixfeld@tea| | | m.look.ca> | | | Sent by: | | | owner-nanog@m| | | erit.edu | | | | | | | | | 12/01/2000 | | | 09:59 AM | | | | |--------+-----------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "'nanog(a)nanog.org'" <nanog(a)nanog.org> | | cc: | | Subject: Network Availability Report | >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------| I'm looking for some kind of tool that can generate a report on network availability. For instance; this utility would run on a server and perform tests to other hosts and routers across the network. The usual Network Monitoring Tool tests like ping, port response, etc but also things like throughput between monitoring host and destination, packet-loss and a total percentage of availability for that host. Obviously the availability "number" would be dynamic based on the results of the tests and how the user configures the impact of those tests against the available percentage. Has anyone seen anything like this in one nice little package? What I'm going to do is give the head honchos a URL where all they have to do is click on a portion of our network and read off the uptime percentage. Thx! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This email server is running an evaluation copy of the MailShield anti- spam software. Please contact your email administrator if you have any questions about this message. MailShield product info: www.mailshield.com

1 0