- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by Sean Donelan 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

>SAVVIS. Fortunately Our target markets are not just libraries and other >information providers, it's EVERYONE that needs a T1 and above connection >to the Internet. How many cities are you in Sean, where are DRA's POPs for >customers to access? How much bandwidth does DRA have to get these >customer to other network? Let's compare bandwidth shall we. DRA tries to do one thing well, rather than a lot of things not so well. Like all things, the correct answer is "It depends." If you are interested in the DRA network geography, a pretty picture of the DRA North American POPs is at <http://dranet.dra.com/dranet.html>. BTW, all those locations are up, operational, and have DRA owned and operated equipment in place. DRA's international offices are located in Montreal Canada, Paris France, and Melbourne Australia. The primary NOC is in St. Louis, MO and backup NOC operates out of Monterey, CA. Since DRA also has a lot of private connections (in the old NSFNET AUP days these were called 'backdoor' connections) calculating total bandwidth is a bit confusing. If you follow the AGIS bandwidth counting method, DRA has about 268 Mbps of possible bandwidth to other networks through public and private inter-connects, although DRA doesn't have any single link faster than 45 Mbps. However, bandwidth is rarely the problem. I've found a well engineered 56Kbps connection outperformed a DS3 port into a poorly engineered network. >When 80 to 90 percent of the Internet traffic is to MCI, SPRINT and UUNET >then our model is the right way to build this, not to try and see how many >peering agreements one can get. Except the model falls apart if 50% percent of the your Internet traffic isn't just to MCI, Sprint and UUNET, as in DRA's case. If you want to get anywhere off the commercial beaten path, like many of our customers do, things quickly get very bad if you stick with just those three providers. Most of our backdoor connections exist exactly for that reason. Look at the KEYNOTE test sites. Although it might appear heavly weighted towards MCI, SPRINT, and UUNET (23 out of 35 sites), the network is never so simple. It works well as long as you are in a US city going to another US city. But looking at the Bell Canada graph, things don't work as well. Hint: If you are trying to reach a Canadian audience, don't put your web server in a US city. We've had a private 'backboor' connection to the University of Toronto for years for precisely this reason. Further, about half the Keynote test sites seemed to have alternate connections. I couldn't figure out the numbers until I started doing traceroutes, and then things started making more sense. You'll discover the best route isn't always through MCI, Sprint or UUNET. Those little exchange points can make a difference. St. Louis, MO MCI 207.230.62.16 Cybercon/Internet 1st $ traceroute 207.230.62.16 traceroute to 207.230.62.16 (207.230.62.16), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 StLouis22-e3.dra.net (192.65.218.2) 200 ms 10 ms 0 ms 2 stlouix.starnet.net (198.32.132.12) 10 ms 20 ms 0 ms 3 e0-1-2.starnet2.starnet.net (199.217.255.97) 70 ms 10 ms 10 ms 4 router.cybercon.com (199.217.252.58) 10 ms 20 ms 10 ms 5 207.230.62.16 (207.230.62.16) 20 ms 10 ms 10 ms It is amusing to look at AGIS's chart in the Boardwatch directory. The graph dramatically demostrates how badly AGIS's tough-line peering policy hurt it in this test. Refusing to peer with CRL or Goodnet wouldn't have changed CRL's or Goodnet's performance very much, but it does appear to hurt AGIS's performance. Maybe Sprint and MCI might want to re-think their peering policies also. On the other hand, I've never heard of CompuServe turning down an opportunity to inter-connect their network with other networks. I'm a pragmatic person. DRA has connections to several exchange points, and has many more private 'backdoor' connections to other networks. DRA even buys (gasp) service from a few other providers, and also sells service to a few other providers. All work well, customers are happy, and DRA is profitable. Let's compare balance sheets shall we? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: UUNet 10Plus
by Sanjay Dani 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

>Which NAP is that? http://www.ix.digital.com >>know the customer can't push 10Mb anyway. He "pretty much" refused to >>give the 10 plus service within a NAP --where our router is colocated

1 0

Re: UUNet 10Plus
by Alex Rubenstein 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Which NAP is that? At 12:20 PM 7/9/97 -0700, Sanjay Dani wrote: > >>questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand >>that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know >>why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and >>allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing > >The last time I talked to a UUnet sales rep with a clue, he >"pretty much" acknowledged that the reason their 10 Plus service >is not much more expensive than the dual T1 service is because they >know the customer can't push 10Mb anyway. He "pretty much" refused to >give the 10 plus service within a NAP --where our router is colocated >with theirs and PNIs are allowed-- over a 10baseT (better than >the netedge) or local loop DS3 handoff. > >Sales people never say things directly, hence the "pretty much" quote >above which is my reading of his excuses. > >Sanjay. > --- "Don't go with a spineless ISP; we have more backbone." Alex Rubenstein -- alex(a)nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

1 0

Re: UUNet 10Plus
by Alex Rubenstein 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Also; can you get the NetEdge to do Full Duplex? That could improve your througput. At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote: > >My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was >delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s >portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they >formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit. > >Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service. > >-Deepak. > >On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote: > >> Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps, >> so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology >> behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they >> call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than >> 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the >> Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the >> smallest possible presence in our network in the future. >> >> Joe Shaw - jshaw(a)insync.net >> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services >> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee >> >> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote: >> > >> > You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge. >> > >> > -Deepak. >> > >> >> > --- "Don't go with a spineless ISP; we have more backbone." Alex Rubenstein -- alex(a)nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

1 0

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by Robert Laughlin 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

In response to the *smart* comments (not repeated here), the percentages given are of external traffic only. The 2% not accounted for is due to rounding down the results. I suppose I can do it to more decimal places if you really want it. Also we do retain lots of our own traffic, but I felt it was irrevalent for the purposes of this discussion, so retained traffic was not included in the calculations. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DataXchange purchases transit from uunet, mci & sprint. But we also > > aggressively try to peer with those who wish to peer. Gary, you are wrong > > to say that 90% of traffic is for uunet, mci or sprint. I have the > > statistics on my own network to prove this. Typically we see a breakdown > > like this: > > > > MCI 22% > > Sprint 7% > > UUNET 21% > > all other (via peering) 48% > > > > In our opinion since only 52% of the traffic has its best routing thru > > uunet, sprint & mci, bi-lateral peering is definately worthwhile. > >

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Results
by Eric Germann 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

If you really want to test raw performance, why not just enable the chargen service on a router in the core and let him suck that down and measure throughput. No more effective DOS attach than 4 simultaneous chargen sessions on a T1. I suspect a 7513 should be able to spit a few characters per second :) Eric At 11:24 AM 7/9/97 -0700, John Leong wrote: >n Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Jack Rickard wrote: >> I discussed the universal test page >> > suggestion with Gene Shklar this afternoon and we will make it so. > >Universal test page is certainly a [good] step - but it is a step (one >among many) towards [comparative] testing the performance between the >test machine and a *SPECIFIC* web server .... but not the peformance of >the backbone (even though it clearly is a major component of the >result). There are simply too many uncontrolled variables still >outstanding. > >By the way, we have given considerable thought on the attributes of such >standardised test page. ... starting with what is the test about. It >would be a good idea if a sub group of interested parties can get off >line and work on this under some frame work (IETF, NANOG, CAIDA, ... or >just an ad hoc BOF group) and then report the finding back to the >mailing list. > >So, if anyone is interested to work on a standardized web page, send me >mail and I will try to get a seperate discussion list going, do some >serious work ... and reduces the S/N ratio of this list. > >Regards, >John Leong > >

2 1

UUNet 10Plus
by Joe Shaw 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Anyone out there using UUNet's 10 plus setup? We were one of the original beta testers, and have had consistant complaints about the performance of the link because of the 10Mbps ethernet handoff to us. We can only get around 6Mbps out of the link before it hoses, and we know that's really what you're going to get out of 10Mbit ethernet, which is why we've asked for a different handoff meathod. Also, they charge us $2000 for local loop to run us to a building downtown, and from there it comes back into the building we're in, into a room down the hall from our NOC. They have their own reasons for this I'm sure, but no one's been able to tell me why. Our problem is that we've maxed out our supposed 10Mbps link, so they want us to get a metered DS3, charging us $4000 more a month, plus a setup fee. Now, under current UUNet performance, it's not likely we're going to do anything like that. It makes no sense to pay $4000 more, plus a $2000 install fee to get mediocre performance out of them. My question is, has anyone else out there with 10Plus service gotten a different handoff from UUNet? If so, how'd you get them to do it, and if not, did you ask? We've been quite upset with UUNet for the past 5 months, and seriously considering dropping them down to a t1 and using the DS3 we just had installed from anouther carrier as our main path to the net, but that does away with being really multi-homed. Any suggestions, questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing tiered DS3 service, and if so, why even have 10Plus access? Doesn't make sense, unless you're a marketer... Joe Shaw - jshaw(a)insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee

3 5

remove
by Infante, Andy 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Can anyone please send me the address to send a remove command to for this list? Thanks, Andy Infante Andy Infante Network Systems Analyst Duke Clinical Research Institute Pager (919) 409-0131 Voice (919) 416-3033

1 0

Re: UUNet 10Plus
by Sanjay Dani 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

>questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand >that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know >why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and >allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing The last time I talked to a UUnet sales rep with a clue, he "pretty much" acknowledged that the reason their 10 Plus service is not much more expensive than the dual T1 service is because they know the customer can't push 10Mb anyway. He "pretty much" refused to give the 10 plus service within a NAP --where our router is colocated with theirs and PNIs are allowed-- over a 10baseT (better than the netedge) or local loop DS3 handoff. Sales people never say things directly, hence the "pretty much" quote above which is my reading of his excuses. Sanjay.

1 0

Re: Suspension of reissuing deleted domain names (fwd)
by Edward Fang 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

I think the reason NSI took the position they did was because these companies re-register the domain after non-payment once it is released back into the pool (probably repeatedly, and thereby causing the 'tens of thousands of requests'). I think the only way to stop this type of action is for NSI to require guaranteed payment on registration (account, credit card, etc). The grace period given is too generous and allowing this type of ridiculous speculation. Ed On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: :On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, David H. Holtzman wrote: : :> Until further notice, Network Solutions will be temporarily suspending the :> process of deleting domain names for which payment has not been received. :> In recent weeks the InterNIC has been spammed repeatedly with tens of :> thousands of requests by domain name speculators attempting to register : :What can be down about domainbrokers.com? Have a look at the files at :http://www.domainbrokers.com/asp/. I just tried to register a domain for :a customer, and found that it had been registered the day before by :domainbrokers.com. I believe they have no intention to use the domain :name. All they hope to do is sell it, probably for $1000. They appear to :have setup no DNS records other than NS records for it. : :Companies like this that piss in the domain name registration pool should :be banned from registering domains. :

2 1