- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Level 3 is reporting fiber cuts in San Jose and San Francisco
by Ulf Zimmermann 11 May '00

11 May '00

No further details how many or where exactly. -- Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-769-2936 Alameda Networks, Inc. | http://www.Alameda.net | Fax#: 510-521-5073

5 5

Important NANOG 19 Meeting Announcements
by Carol Wadsworth 11 May '00

11 May '00

Important NANOG 19 Meeting Announcements: HOTEL Hotel rooms in the NANOG room block at the Hyatt Regency Albuquerque have all been reserved. Unfortunately, the hotel cannot increase the block because they are at full capacity (sold out). The Hyatt is recommending the following two hotels: Doubletree ( $159 and up) 201 Marquette, NW Phone: 505-247-3344 La Posada ($79 and up) 125 Second Street Phone: 505-242-9090 REGISTRATION: The meeting will be limited to first 500 registrants because of space limitation at the hotel. There are currently 440 registrants to date. We will need to close registration early if the 500 limit is reached prior to the June 2 deadline. If so, walk-in attendees won't be permitted, as in the past, and a waiting list will need to be established. https://www.merit.edu/nanog/registration.form.html PAYMENT STATUS: If you already registered for the meeting, please check your payment status out on the attendee list on the web. Your registration fee must be received by June 2, after that date the registration fee increases $50. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/Registration.List.html A list of preliminary agenda topics is now posted on the NANOG web page. Hope you can make it to Albuquerque for NANOG 19. Thanks. Carol Wadsworth Merit Network, Inc.

1 0

Re: Optical Crossconnects and IP
by Vadim Antonov 11 May '00

11 May '00

I would like to inject some sanity into the traffic engineering discussion by reminding about some small fact of life: Nobody knows how to measure how what the demanded/available bandwidth ratio is when the circuit is overloaded. In a steady more, utilization is s 100%; packet loss is not an accurate gauge, by any means (it depends on delays, agressiveness os sources, queue manageent policies, timing of source starts, and phase of the moon). What it means that by and large traffic engineering is done by seat of the pants. An attempt to create a close control loop with that kind of source information is somewhat problematic. And so is "wavelength on demand". When circuits aren't overloaded, traffic engineering yields zero benefit. --vadim PS I just love engineers spending untold hours and companies spending billions on a technology of questionable worth and little theoretical foundations, instead of spending a small fraction of it on research first. PPS Pluris core technology allows to treat traffic as a liquid - unlike simple IP routing it works by splitting aggregated streams, which can be sent along different paths. It makes any VC-based traffic engineering and associated hardware overhead simply unnecessary. I'm more than a little disappointed by the fact that this is apparently lost in the mind of the company's current architects. (Admittedly, it still requires some work on algorithms, but at least routing of colored liquids is much easier computationally than routing of VCs).

3 2

Re: Japan's NTT Com To Buy Verio
by Paul Vixie 11 May '00

11 May '00

> Spamwise? Verio has had an above-average response to spam coming from or through their network. I expect that this policy will continue to improve, and that an NTT buyout won't affect it at all. (Randy's PSG was one of the first BGP-level subscribers to the MAPS RBL.)

3 2

Strange result while ping serial interface
by Yu Ning 11 May '00

11 May '00

Hi nanog, Strange thing happens everyday. When I were troubleshooting yestoday, I found a ping to my local serial interface (no matter it's 155M POS, or 2M Serial interface) takes nearly twice delay compared with a ping to the remote side of the serial interrface ! When I trace to my local serial interface, I got the first hop to the remote end, then second hop back to my local interface ! For example, 202.97.2.1 is local serial interface, while 2.2 is remote side. A trace on 2.1 to 2.1 first go to 2.2, then back to 2.1. And this situation can be verified on both side. Have you ever seen this situation ? Is it due to our misconfiguration? or it's sheerly a mis-display of result in Cisco box (can't believe it) The background is: we're using ISIS as IGP, and utilized level-1/2 link. thanks for any input. regards, Yu Ning ------------------------------------------- (Mr.) Yu(2) Ning(2) ChinaNet Backbone Operation Networking Dep.,Datacom Bureau China Telecom.,Beijing(100088),P.R.C +86-10-66418121/66418122/66418123(fax) -------------------------------------------

2 1

回复: ??: Strange result while ping serial interface
by Yu Ning 11 May '00

11 May '00

Thank you very much for your information. I get that page, and know it's for debugging reason. regards, Yu Ning -----Original Message----- From: Blake Fithen <fithen(a)NetworksPlus.com> To: 'Yu Ning' <yuning(a)cndata.com>; Dumb Kid <dumbkid0(a)yahoo.com>; nanog-post <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:07 AM Subject: RE: ??: Strange result while ping serial interface >>From the Cisco "System Management" document: > >http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ssr90/tsc_r90/5401 9 >.htm > > >"Note If the IP version of the ping command is used on a directly connected >interface, the packet is sent out the interface and should be forwarded >back to the router from the far end. The time travelled reflects this round >trip >route. This feature can be useful for diagnosing serial line problems. By >placing the local or remote CSU/DSU into loopback mode and "pinging" >your own interface, you can isolate the problem to the router or leased >line." > >blake > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Yu Ning [SMTP:yuning@cndata.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 9:00 PM >> To: Dumb Kid; nanog-post >> Subject: ??: Strange result while ping serial interface >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> But it's obviously inefficient. Is it due to some inability of >> PPP ? Or can you tell what reason makes the packets a round >> trip ? >> >> Since the router should have the information of its local interface, >> why should it always send packets out, the get it back ? >> >> regards, >> >> Yu Ning >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dumb Kid <dumbkid0(a)yahoo.com> >> To: Yu Ning <yuning(a)cndata.com>; nanog-post <nanog(a)merit.edu> >> Date: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:45 AM >> Subject: Re: Strange result while ping serial interface >> >> >> >Yeah , it's normal. The packet actually travels to the >> >other end of the router over the serial and back. >> >That's why the response time is doubled. >> > >> > >> > >> >--- Yu Ning <yuning(a)cndata.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi nanog, >> >> >> >> Strange thing happens everyday. When I were >> >> troubleshooting yestoday, >> >> I found a ping to my local serial interface (no >> >> matter it's 155M POS, >> >> or 2M Serial interface) takes nearly twice delay >> >> compared with a ping >> >> to the remote side of the serial interrface ! When I >> >> trace to my local >> >> serial interface, I got the first hop to the remote >> >> end, then second >> >> hop back to my local interface ! >> >> >> >> For example, 202.97.2.1 is local serial interface, >> >> while 2.2 is remote >> >> side. A trace on 2.1 to 2.1 first go to 2.2, then >> >> back to 2.1. And this >> >> situation can be verified on both side. >> >> >> >> Have you ever seen this situation ? Is it due to our >> >> misconfiguration? >> >> or it's sheerly a mis-display of result in Cisco box >> >> (can't believe it) >> >> >> >> The background is: we're using ISIS as IGP, and >> >> utilized level-1/2 link. >> >> >> >> thanks for any input. >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> >> Yu Ning >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> >> (Mr.) Yu(2) Ning(2) >> >> ChinaNet Backbone Operation >> >> Networking Dep.,Datacom Bureau >> >> China Telecom.,Beijing(100088),P.R.C >> >> +86-10-66418121/66418122/66418123(fax) >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >===== >> > >> >-- >> >D.U.M.B.K.I.D. >> > >> >__________________________________________________ >> >Do You Yahoo!? >> >Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. >> >http://im.yahoo.com/ >> > >> >

1 0

回复: Strange result while ping serial interface
by Yu Ning 11 May '00

11 May '00

Hi, But it's obviously inefficient. Is it due to some inability of PPP ? Or can you tell what reason makes the packets a round trip ? Since the router should have the information of its local interface, why should it always send packets out, the get it back ? regards, Yu Ning -----Original Message----- From: Dumb Kid <dumbkid0(a)yahoo.com> To: Yu Ning <yuning(a)cndata.com>; nanog-post <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Strange result while ping serial interface >Yeah , it's normal. The packet actually travels to the >other end of the router over the serial and back. >That's why the response time is doubled. > > > >--- Yu Ning <yuning(a)cndata.com> wrote: >> >> Hi nanog, >> >> Strange thing happens everyday. When I were >> troubleshooting yestoday, >> I found a ping to my local serial interface (no >> matter it's 155M POS, >> or 2M Serial interface) takes nearly twice delay >> compared with a ping >> to the remote side of the serial interrface ! When I >> trace to my local >> serial interface, I got the first hop to the remote >> end, then second >> hop back to my local interface ! >> >> For example, 202.97.2.1 is local serial interface, >> while 2.2 is remote >> side. A trace on 2.1 to 2.1 first go to 2.2, then >> back to 2.1. And this >> situation can be verified on both side. >> >> Have you ever seen this situation ? Is it due to our >> misconfiguration? >> or it's sheerly a mis-display of result in Cisco box >> (can't believe it) >> >> The background is: we're using ISIS as IGP, and >> utilized level-1/2 link. >> >> thanks for any input. >> >> regards, >> >> Yu Ning >> ------------------------------------------- >> (Mr.) Yu(2) Ning(2) >> ChinaNet Backbone Operation >> Networking Dep.,Datacom Bureau >> China Telecom.,Beijing(100088),P.R.C >> +86-10-66418121/66418122/66418123(fax) >> ------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > >===== > >-- >D.U.M.B.K.I.D. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com/ >

1 0

OT: Foolish question but we have too many differing opinions...
by Rich Sena 10 May '00

10 May '00

Now it's common concensus here at the farm that you get billed at the higher capacity either inbound or outbound on a WAN connection however we seem to havbe a disagreement here as to what the theorhetical capacity of the specific connection is... Say for example on a T1 is it 1544 Mbps inbound AND outbound or an aggregate? And for that matter what about a DS3 or other ATM's (OC3+ etc...) any comments appreciated... As always reply to my stupidity off-list and if enough ppl harass me I will sumize...) -- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras(a)poppa.thick.net

1 0

UUNET outage in Palo Alto
by Garlic 10 May '00

10 May '00

There seems to be a significant outage in the UUNET network at their Palo Alto POP. Their status pages and telephone messages are not showing this.

7 6

RE: Born identity?
by Foley, Grant 10 May '00

10 May '00

Woof. > -----Original Message----- > From: Roeland Meyer (E-mail) [SMTP:rmeyer@mhsc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 6:38 PM > To: 'Susan R. Harris'; 'Garlic' > Cc: 'nanog-support(a)merit.edu' > Subject: Born identity? > > > On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog ... > - The Far Side > > > Susan R. Harris: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 3:53 PM > > > > Greetings - we'd like to ask that you use your real name and > > email address when posting to the nanog list, rather than an alias. > > > Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. Phone: > > >

1 0