- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Frame Relay encap vis-a-vis point-to-point at UUNET (fwd)
by chris.whittenburg＠wcom.com 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

> On Fri, Oct 23, 1998 at 11:48:00AM -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > You could also order a larger circuit with the same FR paramters. > > The circuit in question is from UUNet. We're not terribly interested > in paying them more money when they are 3x more expensive than anyone > else we get bandwidth from. > > FWIW, Savvis does _not_ have this problem. > > -- > Jeffrey Haas "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has What version of IOS are you running? It could be this cisco bug: CSCdj91667: frame relay/serial: LMI or keepalives sent out of order/not sent. regards, chris

1 0

Frame Relay encap vis-a-vis point-to-point at UUNET
by Barry L James 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

Hey all, We just got a third T1, this time through UUNet and when I looked at their router configuration I got a little surprise. We ordered a point-to-point circuit that is being terminated at their detroit POP. The configuration, however, sets up the line as a frame relay encap on a sub-interface (on a Cisco, of course :). When I talked to my UUNet rep he advised that this was the way "every large ISP did it" which I knew wasn't exactly true since our MCI and AT&T (just recently transitioned from the BBN backbone to the AT&T network) does not use this configuration. He insisted that it was still a point to point and that the frame relay encapsulation was used to enhance the connection. Well, I had him grab an engineer (he was an SE) that could possibly explain it better to me (since the SE said F/R was used to decrease RIP broadcasts across their backbone) and the engineer said this (basically): the circuit is terminated in a cascade 9000 f/r switch (used for port density) which went to a HSSI interface in a Cisco 7xxx series router which connected directly to their ATM network. Therefore, the f/r encaps were needed to speak with the cascade. The engineer advised we had a full CIR and would not suffer any bandwidth loss from using f/r encap. Now, I guess my question is: am I getting sold the brooklyn bridge here? I mean, not that I wouldn't like to *own* the brooklyn bridge (well, I'd rather have the triboro or the washington, but anyway...). Is this f/r encap going have any adverse affect on the quality of this connection (assuming that this is *NOT* a point-to-point into a frame cloud) or am I getting shoveled a load of copralite? Thanks! Barry Barry L James | Mikrotec Internet Services, Inc (AS3801) Director R & D | 1001 Winchester Rd bjames(a)mis.net | Lexington KY 40505 http://www.mis.net/ | 606/266.5925 800/875.5095 Member AAAI, IEEE # 40277528 --- Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on. -- Winston Churchill

11 12

Slightly off topic: anyone using Software.com Intermail?
by Michael L. Barrow 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

Sorry for the off-topicness of this message, but this is the right audience that I want to answer my question. Is anyone out there using Intermail from software.com? Please reply to mlbarrow(a)eni.net. Thanks! -- Michael L. Barrow <mlbarrow(a)eni.net> Principal Security Engineer, Epoch Internet T:949.399.8413, F:949.474.8127 PGP Fingerprint = 6E56 4590 F1AF 0CCA 2563 07C2 26EF B164 F5C4 BE8C

1 0

New report from ATIS on Internet/Telephone reliability
by Sean Donelan 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

The ATIS T1 committee has issued a new technical report on the reliability and availability aspects of the interactions between the Internet and the public telecommunications network. ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/techrpts/tr.0/tr_55.pdf Abstract This Technical Report addresses the reliability and survivability aspects of the interactions between the Internet and the Public Telecommunications Network (PTN). It examines the general architectures of both networks and the interfaces between them. This document offers suggestions for meeting reliability challenges posed by changing network traffic characteristics. Two major categories of solutions are introduced: network engineering and network architecture. Within these categories, alternatives may be selected depending on the operator's local circumstances. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Source for availability numbers (Re: SONET ring questions)
by Sean Donelan 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

alan(a)globalcenter.NET (Alan Hannan) writes: >> For total system uptime >> 90.0% (one nine or less) Desktop systems. >> 99.0% (two nines) Intermediate business systems >> 99.9% (three nines) Most business data systems and workgroup servers >> 99.99% (four nines) High-end business systems and your friendly >> neighborhood telco >> 99.999% (five nines) Bank Data Centers and Telco Data Centers, some ISPs >> 99.9999% (six nines) Only God and Norad live here. >> 99.99999% (seven nines) Even God doesn't have pockets this deep. > > What's your source for this data? Here are some availability parameters I understand are used for US Government Communication Service acquisitions by the FAA and DOD. I don't know what, if any, study or research went into these definitions. There seems to be a lot of exageration in both the stated requirement and deliverability of many availability numbers. However, the table below are some of the sanest ones I've seen. The most extreme availibility number I give even the slightest credence was for the AT&T Master Clock in Hillsboro, Missouri at 9 nines. I've never confirmed it with AT&T though, and wouldn't be surprised if it was less. Service Service Expected Expected Type Scope Availability Restoration Time Critical Functions or Services 0.9999987 <6 seconds which, if lost, would prevent the network/ system from exercising safe operation and control for the end users Essential Functions or services 0.999 approximately which, if lost, would 10 minutes reduce the capability of the network/system to exercise safe operation and control for the end users Routine Functions or services 0.99 approximately which, if lost, would 2 hours not significantly degrade the capability of the network/system to exercise safe operation and control for the end users I took this table from another publication, which gave the reference as U.S. Federal Standard 1037B, Telecommunications Glossary. A note was included "The expected availability values require information as to the population and interval over which they have been calculated." -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Information on cross-lata transit
by Robert Boyle 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

Hello All, Please let me know if there a telcom-carrier list to which this question should be addressed. Many of you seem to be the most familiar with telco/carrier/equipment issues of any list that I know of. Thanks. NJ is divided into two LATA's both served by Bell Atlantic, because of the 1984 consent decree, B.A. cannot provide transit across this LATA. I need to find any one of the following immediately... 1. A CLEC/ILEC/LD/landline/fiber/microwave carrier that can (and will) provide an NNI to NNI interconnection so I can connect the northern BA FR cloud to the southern BA FR cloud. - For less than the ~ $2000/MRC I have been quoted for a 768k PVC. 2. Someone willing to rent a small amount of space with a physical presence in both LATAs. A building built on the LATA border, an office complex, etc... I will use xDSL, wireless, Ethernet, whatever to connect the two LATAs as long as they are close enough in proximity. I don't mind infrastructure expenditures, it's the MRC that kills me. I will even give them free Internet access. :) 3. A way to have B.A. do this for me. Can this be done if I file a SRA with B.A. and the PUC or is this beyond their jurisdiction and in FCC territory. 4. A carrier with REASONABLE rates that can cross the LATA in NJ. I will pay up to ~ $1200/month end-to-end, but that's already more than twice the MRC for two BA FR circuits. TIA, Robert Robert Boyle Server Co-location, Garden Networks Internet Access, 50 Diller Ave Development & Consulting Newton, NJ 07860 (973)300-9211 Ext.103 8AM-8PM Mon-Fri EST http://www.garden.net Quality Internet Connectivity Nationwide

1 0

Lucent WaveLAN PC Cards?
by Wayne 22 Oct '98

22 Oct '98

Does anyone know it there will be support for the new 802.11 2.4GHz WaveLAN cards at the Atlanta NANOG or only the older, non 802.11 compliant ones? Either way, can someone recommend a clueful wholesale distributor (or worst case, "retail" dealer) of the Lucent WaveLAN hardware so that I can buy an appropriate PC card before I come? Regards, -- Wayne D. Correia Critical Path Inc. main: +1.415.808.8800 CTO <wayne(a)cp.net> San Francisco, CA 94105 fax: +1.415.826.6100 InterNIC: (WAYNE-ORG) http://www.cp.net 24/7 mobile: +1.415.826.6000 "we handle the world's email." http://www.cp.net/contactus/jobs.html http://www.iw.com/print/current/infrastructure/19981012-hosting.html

4 3

Colocation for MAE-EAST / MAE-WEST
by Jan Czmok 22 Oct '98

22 Oct '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi! Which ISPs/ CARRIERs offer bridged MAE-EAST / MAE-WEST COLOCATION (and other Exchanges) besides the MFS/WORLDCOM COLOCATIONS. I just get really sick about MFS ... Please repeat to me by private email: czmok(a)ipf.de Greetings - --- Jan Czmok Senior Network Engineer IPF.NET Service Provider GmbH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNi+Ar+xodCrDtTgJAQFtIwQAu2J2w9hFJ4Pk01HLecP0SnNTOQRMbfq4 2MY+AaUuKTLnYMlokdH1HuNSMIAMhMUbLWYpbw6TFXxM2HIyNfv9Ru9qpoVtSavA zHXX4D632sowycs0KBTHarLBXt18Gh3m51eQFqynOL/1AXXDWy/XhaUPX545b5bv ahNuiqyAOGE= =YDyG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

ISP communities
by Philippe Strauss 22 Oct '98

22 Oct '98

Hi there, Is there any web site summarizing communities defined by major ISP? I'm looking for UUnet (AS701), MCI (euhh C&W sorry) (AS3561), BT (AS5400). Of course, their communities are not published in the whois database, like UU europe (AS702), Ebone (AS1755), Swisscom (AS3303). TIA, Cheers. -- Philippe Strauss, ingenieur systeme/reseau, Urbanet SA philippe.strauss(a)urbanet.ch tel +41 21 623 30 20 --

1 0

Re: Actions to quiet the Smurf amplifiers?
by Phil Howard 21 Oct '98

21 Oct '98

> If you search on the Cisco web page, you'll probably find it > under "reverse-path" or "reverse-path forwarding" - only works > for singly homed customers. Then it is merely similar, and not identical, to what I described. What I described included the notion that the source address must be in the set of all (not just the best) routes back. The theory on this is that even most asymmetric routing will have a lesser route that would be symmetric. Of course some really goofed assymetric routes do often appear and those may be trouble. Still, the place where ISPs should apply it is all the interfaces _other_ _than_ their border interfaces. They will have control over their own routing symmetry (hopefully) and the logic (at least as I describe it) applies to packets coming _in_ on an interface, not those going out. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --

1 0