- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: More on video
by Sean M. Doran 19 Sep '98

19 Sep '98

Sandra Gittlen wrote: | In addition to the sheer size of the file, one issue is how to | maintain a user's link for up to four hours. The Internet was | not designed for such stateful connections. Stateful connections? Do you mean "long-lasting bulk-transfers"? If so, then, while the current Internet is not optimal for them (in large part because of the sheer amount of very short flows that in aggregate do not do particularly good jobs of congestion avoidance, and because of open loop non-congestion-avoiding traffic), it certainly was designed to support them, and they can and do happen. Multi-week TCP connections (ssh/telnet/X) across the Internet are nothing very new, and they work just fine. Really large TCP bulk transfers lasting hours and even days is nothing new in some places (supercomputer centres and backup storage facilities come to mind). Multi-hour multimedia stuff is not very new either -- people watching IETF multicasts is not very new, and NANOG unleashed the concept of watching several hours of realvideo too. What is different here is that lots of people will be trying to watch several hours of streaming realvideo all at once, and there is a risk of something breaking down -- more likely the realvideo servers won't cope with the load. The really big pity is that TCP mode isn't the default; shoving non-real-time realvideo into a TCP stream solves the worries about realvideo's UDP-mode congestion avoidance not being _no more aggressive than the congestion avoidance detailed in RFC 2001_ due to implementation bugs or (intentional or accidental) protocol misdesign. If, however, realvideo does RFC-2001-style congestion avoidance properly, then the core of the network won't even notice Monday, since the long-lived congestion-avoiding flows are "nicer" to bottlenecks than the hordes of short-lived flows one normally sees when people are surfing the web. Sean.

1 0

Re: More on video
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

> Just did a story on this yesterday... > > http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0917starr.html > > 'Net braces for Clinton testimony > > By Sandra Gittlen > Network World Fusion, 9/17/98 > > In London, the BBC's online venture is also gearing up. BBC Online has > capacity for 20,000 concurrent videostreams, said marketing editor > Keith Roberts. Err, 10K license but that doesn't g'tee there's enough b/w for it. If it was a 28K stream that'd be 280M, we have around 145M total for this. If it was just a 5K speech service it'd be nicer. Speaking to a number of ISP & large users the other week there were conflicting opinions on this: ISP - Multicast doesn't scale, will cost too much to roll out, doesn't have an obvious pricing model and so on so we're not going to do it. Plus b/w will be so cheap it we won't care (assumes the Telcos pass on that low cost) Users - this is crazy, we should have multicast we can't keep burning so much b/w sending the same packets down the same wires > The BBC has some experience with this sort of massive > demand. Last August, the still nascent BBC Web effort was hard hit by > mourners seeking footage of Princess Diana. Although the site did not > crash, it did slow down, Roberts said. Yeah but I cheated and had 8 ISP's, RealNetwork & AOL help out by rebroadcasting our stream. > The BBC hosts its own RealPlayer video and audio servers separate from > the main site's Web servers. "That way, if there is enormous pressure > for video and audio, the Web servers for the site will not be > affected," he said. True the News web servers are on a seperate link but the Real servers share with other services... brandon

1 0

Re: More on video
by Sean Donelan 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

> Dillon said ABCnews.com is in talks with video player creator > RealNetworks to increase the companies' current hosting agreement. "We 'Fortunately' Realnetworks has never released their proprietary server software on the platform used by our customer on their servers. So I may be off the hook on this one. It looks like MCI(house) and GTE(gpo) are going to bear the brunt of this one. Unlike last Friday when no one really knew exactly what was in the boxes, GPO has all weekend to prepare this time. They should have enough copies at the GPO window for all the news media on Monday morning so there is no need to beat up on the government Internet servers. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

5 4

BGP auth error problem *ANSWER*
by Harold Willison 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

thanks to all the folks who responded to me with the answer to this.. 11 people responded, you all gave me the same answer, just spelled many different ways<<g> here is the command that fixed the problem Try having the customer put in a neighbor command like this: neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx dont-capability-negotiate Its an undocumented command set... once again, thanks to the folks who responded.. i owe ya a drink sometime. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | Harold Willison AGIS Network Engineering | * Senior Network Engineer 313-730-5151 * | noc(a)agis.net 313-730-1130 x-5649 | | harold(a)agis.net 24 hours a day, 7 days a week | | <bold><italic> <underline>http://www.agis.net</underline></italic></bold> |<bold><italic> </italic></bold>\*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*/

1 0

Re: More on video
by Jerry Scharf 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

It was Bob Metcalfe of Ethernet fame. jerry

1 0

RE: FCC outage reports
by Goldstein_William＠bns.att.com 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

>From what I have seen, I'm not sure these figures are accurate. Beyond the qualifications that you offered, another factor is the size of the network (i.e. if one carrier has three times the fiber miles and customers of another carrier but has the same number of outages, the "one is just the same as the other" argument might be a little tenuous.) I will check for a direct source, if I can find it, for NANOG list subscribers to access this information independent of any carrier or ISP. Because of a holiday and business travel, I won't get back on this immediately, but I'll try to follow this up in the next two weeks. Bill Goldstein Senior Internet Specialist AT&T wgoldstein(a)att.com TEL:(412)642-7288 ---------- From: SEAN Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 4:06 PM To: nanog Cc: SEAN Subject: FCC outage reports Goldstein_William(a)bns.ATt.COM writes: >There IS a difference. The FCC keeps records of outages which must be >reported by the carriers. > >It is worth checking these out. I think there are some problems with how the FCC outage reports count things, but here goes.... FCC outage reports by year and inter-exchange carrier 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 AT&T 3 15 7 18 17 MCI 13 12 19 9 15 Sprint 3 11 3 12 9 WorldCom NA NA NA 7 13 There are all sorts of normalization problems, different reporting requirements (e.g. if you serve airports you have to report more outages), some carriers report only when the must, other carriers report anything even close to being reportable, and so on. Also, if you know how fiber swapping works, sometimes its luck of the draw who gets tapped when a shared right-of-way gets chopped. For overall trend analysis the FCC outage reports serve a useful purpose. But comparing one carrier to another is a different matter and I'd rather they not get turned into another Boardwatch fiasco with people manipulating their numbers. Note: I haven't gone to FCC reading room in Washington DC and counted the actual reports myself, these numbers are third-hand from one of the carriers salespeople. Caveat Emptor. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation <<File: FCC outage reports.TXT>>

1 0

More on video
by Sandra Gittlen 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

Just did a story on this yesterday... http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0917starr.html 'Net braces for Clinton testimony By Sandra Gittlen Network World Fusion, 9/17/98 Forget the Starr report. The real challenge for the Internet could happen today with the release of streaming video of President Clinton's grand jury testimony. The House of Representatives could vote today to make public four hours of his testimony. House staffers are meeting with media executives to determine how to disseminate the tape and its accompanying documents on the Internet, according to Sharon Hammersla, computer systems coordinator for the U.S. House of Representatives. Online news organizations are rushing to figure out their plans for serving up the videostream. The 'Net has not yet seen this kind of anticipated demand for an audio and videostream, according to Katherine Dillon, vice president of ABCNews.com in New York. In contrast to last week's report, which consisted of roughly 450K bytes of text, the videotape could translate into many megabytes of data. In addition to the sheer size of the file, one issue is how to maintain a user's link for up to four hours. The Internet was not designed for such stateful connections. Dillon said ABCnews.com is in talks with video player creator RealNetworks to increase the companies' current hosting agreement. "We plan to broadcast the tape live as soon as it is made available," she said. However, she said that editing will have to be done to bleep out inappropriate language. She said she is also trying to increase her server capacity. "We have a T-3, but now we have to figure out how to load-balance the expected traffic," she said. "We're working out a plan with RealNetworks right now." In London, the BBC's online venture is also gearing up. BBC Online has capacity for 20,000 concurrent videostreams, said marketing editor Keith Roberts. The BBC has some experience with this sort of massive demand. Last August, the still nascent BBC Web effort was hard hit by mourners seeking footage of Princess Diana. Although the site did not crash, it did slow down, Roberts said. The BBC hosts its own RealPlayer video and audio servers separate from the main site's Web servers. "That way, if there is enormous pressure for video and audio, the Web servers for the site will not be affected," he said. Mindy McAdams, a Web strategist for the American Press Institute in Reston, Va., said media outlets should do more than simply serve up the feed. They should break the videotape into segments and label them clearly so users can go directly to the parts they are interested in. McAdams said one saving grace for media outlets is that not all of the estimated 20 million 'Net users that clamored for the Starr report have the video and audio gear installed on their computers to access the report. -- Sandra Gittlen Online Reporter Network World Fusion 161 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01701 508-820-7431 (phone) 508-820-3467 (fax)

6 6

FCC outage reports
by Sean Donelan 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

Goldstein_William(a)bns.ATt.COM writes: >There IS a difference. The FCC keeps records of outages which must be >reported by the carriers. > >It is worth checking these out. I think there are some problems with how the FCC outage reports count things, but here goes.... FCC outage reports by year and inter-exchange carrier 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 AT&T 3 15 7 18 17 MCI 13 12 19 9 15 Sprint 3 11 3 12 9 WorldCom NA NA NA 7 13 There are all sorts of normalization problems, different reporting requirements (e.g. if you serve airports you have to report more outages), some carriers report only when the must, other carriers report anything even close to being reportable, and so on. Also, if you know how fiber swapping works, sometimes its luck of the draw who gets tapped when a shared right-of-way gets chopped. For overall trend analysis the FCC outage reports serve a useful purpose. But comparing one carrier to another is a different matter and I'd rather they not get turned into another Boardwatch fiasco with people manipulating their numbers. Note: I haven't gone to FCC reading room in Washington DC and counted the actual reports myself, these numbers are third-hand from one of the carriers salespeople. Caveat Emptor. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: More on video
by Dean Anderson 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

At 02:18 PM 9/18/98 -0400, Tim Gibson wrote: >WOLF! I saw a WOLF in the IX, shouted Peter. You saw him? I didn't think the video was out yet.... "Peter" is a codeword for "unnamed intern", right? ;-) --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Sep 18 12:00:00 PDT 1998 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 18Sep98 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 110998 53238 120998 51812 130998 51865 140998 51883 150998 52067 160998 52072 170998 51947 180998 52123 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 4020 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 1940 (1002 cidr, 938 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 340 announced by AS3561 Largest number of classful routes: 1167 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 18Sep98 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1167 936 231 19.8% Alternet AS271 345 149 196 56.8% BCnet Backbone AS4293 442 255 187 42.3% IMCI AS3749 226 68 158 69.9% TECNET AS2493 367 212 155 42.2% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS174 701 570 131 18.7% Performance Systems International AS4200 187 96 91 48.7% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS5668 128 41 87 68.0% Century Telephone Inc. AS4755 124 46 78 62.9% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS2685 227 150 77 33.9% IBM Global Network - US AS3804 231 158 73 31.6% Bell Solutions AS3221 117 44 73 62.4% EENet Autonomous System AS7046 246 175 71 28.9% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS4740 385 331 54 14.0% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS549 203 150 53 26.1% ONet Backbone AS8517 124 72 52 41.9% ULAKNET-ASN AS10928 100 48 52 52.0% UNKNOWN AS6335 69 20 49 71.0% NTRNET AS72 87 39 48 55.2% Schlumberger Information Network AS1239 542 495 47 8.7% SprintLink Backbone AS803 78 34 44 56.4% SaskNet Backbone AS4539 68 28 40 58.8% NETROPOLIS AS852 160 121 39 24.4% AGT Advance Communication AS7122 119 80 39 32.8% MTS ADVANCED Network Policy AS6181 65 28 37 56.9% FUSE-NET AS10459 45 10 35 77.8% WANSASN AS2707 64 31 33 51.6% WEC AS1221 281 249 32 11.4% AARNET-AS AS6332 89 58 31 34.8% TELNOR AS4307 32 1 31 96.9% SVINET-1 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